The federal minimum wage is seven dollars and twenty-five cents an hour. It hasn’t gone up since 2009. That’s seventeen years — the longest stretch without an increase since the minimum wage was created in 1938.

You’ll hear that raising it kills jobs. The data says otherwise. Since 1996, minimum wage increases have been on the ballot thirty-two times. Voters approved twenty-eight of them — in red states and blue states alike. In 2024, Alaska and Missouri both passed fifteen-dollar minimums in the same election where they voted for Trump.

And the research backs it up. Decades of studies have found little to no job loss from minimum wage increases. What they do find is that workers spend the money — right back into their local economies.

Congress hasn’t raised the federal minimum wage in seventeen years. Voters raise it every chance they get. At some point, you have to ask who’s out of step.

$7.25 since 2009 — the longest freeze in history. The federal minimum wage last increased on July 24, 2009. The 17-year freeze is the longest since the Fair Labor Standards Act established the minimum wage in 1938. Congress has raised it 22 times since then, roughly every one to ten years. Inflation has eroded 30% of its purchasing power since 2009 — a $7.25 wage in 2009 is worth about $5.08 in 2009 dollars today. 20 states still use the federal $7.25 as their minimum. (EPI, May 2026; NPR; Employsome)

Voters approve it almost every time. From 1996 through 2024, there were 32 ballot measures to increase state minimum wages. Voters approved 28 of them (87.5%). The only four rejections: Missouri and Montana in 1996, California and Massachusetts in 2024. In 2024, Alaska and Missouri both passed $15/hour minimums in the same election where they voted for Trump. Nebraska also passed a minimum wage increase in 2022 alongside voting Republican. (Ballotpedia; EPI; NPR; The Nation)

The research on job loss. Decades of economic research find little to no employment loss from minimum wage increases. A landmark 2019 meta-analysis by Dube (UMass Amherst) covering over 60 studies found "the overall number of low-wage jobs remained essentially unchanged" after minimum wage increases. The EPI’s May 2026 review of the literature confirms: "Decades of economic research support this two-thirds benchmark, finding little to no employment loss from ambitious minimum wage increases." Workers spend the additional income locally, generating economic activity. (EPI, May 2026; Dube, 2019)

State action in the absence of federal movement. 30 states plus DC have set minimum wages above $7.25. DC leads at $17.95/hour, followed by Washington ($17.13), Connecticut ($16.94), California ($16.90). 21 states and DC will have minimums of at least $15 by 2028. But 20 states — home to about 55 million workers — remain at $7.25. (EPI; Employsome)

Related PM scripts: Corporate Welfare (connects low wages to taxpayer-subsidized benefits), The 50-Year Experiment (trickle-down economics), What Happens When You Invest in People (CTC/Medicaid evidence)

When politicians talk about welfare, they usually mean programs for people who are struggling — food stamps, Medicaid, that kind of thing. But why do so many people need those programs when they already have jobs?

A Government Accountability Office study found that millions of full-time workers at some of America’s largest and most profitable corporations earn so little that they qualify for food stamps and Medicaid. Walmart topped the list in every state studied, with McDonald’s right behind them. Seventy percent of the people on these programs work full time.

Think about what that means. These companies are posting billions in quarterly profits, paying their CEOs tens of millions of dollars — and you, the taxpayer, are picking up the tab for their workers’ groceries and healthcare. That’s not a safety net for workers. That’s a subsidy for corporations.

When a company pays poverty wages, it doesn’t save the economy money. It just shifts the cost from their payroll to your tax bill.

The GAO study. In November 2020, the Government Accountability Office published a report (GAO-21-45) examining Medicaid and SNAP enrollment among workers at large employers. Drawing on data from 15 agencies across 11 states, the study found that 12 million wage-earning adults (ages 19-64) were enrolled in Medicaid and 9 million were in SNAP households. Approximately 70% of adult wage earners in both programs worked full-time hours (35+ hours/week). 90% worked in the private sector, concentrated in restaurants, department stores, and grocery chains. (GAO-21-45; GAO-21-410T (testimony))

Walmart and McDonald’s. Analysis of the GAO data by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ office found Walmart was one of the top four employers of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries in every state that provided data. Across nine states, Walmart had approximately 14,500 employees on SNAP and 10,350 on Medicaid. McDonald’s was in the top five employers in at least nine states, with 8,780 on SNAP and 4,600 on Medicaid. (Washington Post; Sanders.senate.gov)

The scale of the subsidy. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that in Arkansas alone, food system employers benefited from more than $21 million per year in indirect subsidies through SNAP benefits compensating for low wages. One in ten U.S. workers lives in a household that receives SNAP. (Union of Concerned Scientists)

CEO pay context. In 2023, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon received total compensation of approximately $25.3 million. The median Walmart employee earned approximately $27,642 — a ratio of 916:1. McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski received approximately $17.8 million. The Economic Policy Institute found that CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratios across major firms averaged 344:1 in 2022, up from 21:1 in 1965. (EPI)

The "corporate welfare" framing. The term reframes public assistance not as a benefit to workers but as a subsidy to employers who pay below a living wage. If these companies paid wages sufficient to keep their workers off public assistance, taxpayers wouldn’t need to fill the gap. Sen. Sanders called it "morally obscene" that "U.S. taxpayers should be forced to subsidize some of the largest and most profitable corporations in America." (Sanders.senate.gov)

Related PM scripts: The Minimum Wage, The 50-Year Experiment, What Happens When You Invest in People

You’ve probably heard politicians rail against the "death tax" — the idea that when you die, the government swoops in and takes your family’s money. It sounds terrifying. It’s also almost entirely made up.

The reality is that the federal estate tax only kicks in on the portion of an estate that exceeds fifteen million dollars — that’s thirty million for a married couple. This means 99.93 percent of Americans will never owe a single penny. This is not a tax on regular people. It is a tax on dynastic wealth.

But what about family farms? You hear that one a lot. In 2022, according to the USDA, a grand total of eighty-seven farm estates in the entire country owed any federal estate tax. And even those families can spread their payments over fifteen years at low interest rates.

The family farm argument isn’t a policy concern — it’s a talking point designed to protect billionaire heirs. The estate tax raises real revenue and is the only thing standing between us and a permanent aristocracy. Calling it the "death tax" was one of the most successful branding campaigns in political history. Don’t fall for it.

The current exemption: $15 million. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed July 4, 2025, permanently set the federal estate tax exemption at $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples using portability), effective January 1, 2026. The exemption is indexed for inflation beginning in 2027. The 40% federal estate tax rate applies only to amounts exceeding the exemption. The OBBBA made this permanent — there is no sunset provision. (Tax Foundation; Arnold & Porter; Charles Schwab)

99.93% of Americans will never owe it. Under the TCJA’s ~$13M exemption, the Tax Policy Center estimated that only about 0.07% of estates owed any federal estate tax — approximately 4,100 estates per year. With the higher $15M exemption under OBBBA, even fewer estates will be subject to the tax. The 99.93% figure is conservative. (Tax Policy Center; CBPP)

87 farm estates. In 2022, according to USDA data analyzed by the Economic Research Service, a total of 87 farm estates in the entire United States owed any federal estate tax. These estates can elect to spread payments over 15 years at favorable interest rates under IRC Section 6166. The "family farm" argument has been a central talking point against the estate tax for decades, despite affecting fewer than 100 farms per year. Under the $15M OBBBA exemption, even fewer farm estates will owe tax. (USDA ERS; Americans for Tax Fairness)

The "death tax" branding. Republican strategist Frank Luntz recommended in the 1990s that Republicans stop calling it the "estate tax" and start calling it the "death tax" to build public opposition. The strategy was explicitly described in his memo "Language of the 21st Century": "It’s the Death Tax, not the Estate Tax or the Inheritance Tax, because the public perceives the ‘Estate Tax’ as a tax on the wealthy." The rebranding was enormously successful — polling consistently shows that opposition to the "death tax" is 10-15 points higher than opposition to the "estate tax," even though they’re the same tax. (NPR; Politico)

What the estate tax actually raises. The estate tax generates approximately $20-25 billion per year in federal revenue. With the OBBBA’s higher exemption, revenue may decrease. The tax functions as the primary check on dynastic wealth accumulation — without it, the wealthiest families can compound inherited wealth across generations with no tax event at all (especially combined with the stepped-up basis provision, which eliminates capital gains at death).

Related PM scripts: Buy, Borrow, Die (the stepped-up basis is the "die" step), The Stepped-Up Basis (detailed explanation), The 50-Year Experiment (broader inequality context)

We often talk about what’s wrong with the tax code. Here’s a simple fix.

Right now, someone earning thirty thousand dollars — barely covering necessities — still owes federal income tax, while a billionaire investor might pay a lower rate on capital gains. The system burdens those with the least to give.

Here’s a simple idea: don’t tax the first forty-five thousand dollars anyone earns. Why forty-five thousand? That’s roughly the actual cost of living for a single adult in a state like Wisconsin, according to MIT’s research. This number would be indexed to that research, making it a real cost-of-living measure, not a political one.

We can pay for it with a modest surtax on income over one million dollars annually. A person making thirty-five thousand gets significant relief. A person making thirty-five million barely notices the difference. We can build a system that works for everyone, not just the wealthy.

The proposal. Don’t tax the first $45,000 anyone earns — roughly the cost of living for a single adult in Wisconsin. Fund it with a modest surtax on income over $1 million. This is a Patriotic Millionaires policy proposal designed to shift the tax burden away from those earning below the cost of living and toward those who can most easily afford it. (Patriotic Millionaires)

The MIT Living Wage Calculator. Developed by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier at MIT, the Living Wage Calculator estimates the hourly wage needed to meet basic needs (housing, food, transportation, healthcare, childcare) in every county and metro area in the U.S. For Wisconsin, the living wage for a single adult varies by county — approximately $21.24/hour in Racine County ($44,179/year), with similar figures statewide. The $45,000 figure in the script is a reasonable statewide approximation. Data last updated February 15, 2026. (MIT Living Wage Calculator)

Current tax treatment of low-income workers. A single filer earning $30,000 in 2026 would owe federal income tax on income above the standard deduction ($15,700 for 2026). On $14,300 of taxable income, they’d owe approximately $1,430 in federal income tax (10% bracket). Meanwhile, a billionaire whose income comes primarily from long-term capital gains pays a maximum rate of 20% — lower than the 22% marginal rate that kicks in at $47,150 for ordinary income. (IRS)

Indexing to cost of living vs. politics. Currently, the standard deduction and tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation (CPI). The proposal would instead index the tax-free threshold to the MIT Living Wage Calculator — a research-based measure of actual living costs — rather than a political negotiation. This prevents the threshold from being eroded by inflation or manipulated by Congress.

The Wisconsin connection. Wisconsin’s minimum wage is $7.25/hour ($15,080/year for full-time work) — less than one-third of the MIT living wage. About one million Wisconsin workers earn less than a living wage. There is not a single county in Wisconsin where $20/hour qualifies as a living wage. (Racine County Eye, May 2026)

Related PM scripts: The Minimum Wage, Who Actually Pays, Two Tax Codes, The 50-Year Experiment

Related CM scripts: CM-49 (Why Rich Towns Get Better Schools — property tax as wealth tax)

The median white family in America has a net worth of about $285,000. For Hispanic families, it’s $62,000. For Black families, $45,000. That gap wasn’t an accident — it was built by centuries of policy decisions on property, lending, and who got access to what.

The tax code widens it. Not by targeting anyone, but by taxing wealth at a much lower rate than work. If your income comes from stocks and investments, the top rate is 20 percent. If it comes from a paycheck, you can pay nearly double that. The U.S. Treasury found that 92 percent of the benefits from those lower capital gains rates go to white families.

So the families who already have the most wealth get the best tax rates. And the families who depend on wages — disproportionately Black and Hispanic — pay more on every dollar they earn. The tax code doesn’t mention race. It doesn’t have to. It just rewards what you already have.

The racial wealth gap. The Federal Reserve’s 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances found median net worth of $285,000 for white families, $61,600 for Hispanic families, and $44,900 for Black families. The typical white household had about six times the wealth of the typical Black household and five times that of the typical Hispanic household. While Black wealth grew 61% and Hispanic wealth grew 47% between 2019 and 2022, the dollar gap actually widened by ~$50,000 during the same period. (Federal Reserve; CNN; Brookings)

How the gap was built. The wealth gap is the cumulative result of centuries of discriminatory policy: slavery, Jim Crow, redlining (FHA explicitly refused to insure mortgages in Black neighborhoods from the 1930s-1960s), blockbusting, discriminatory GI Bill implementation, exclusion from Social Security and minimum wage protections for domestic and agricultural workers (disproportionately Black), and ongoing disparities in lending, hiring, and education funding. (Brookings; NEA)

The capital gains tax break and race. The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis (Working Paper 122, January 2023) found that white families — 67% of all families — receive 92% of the benefits from preferential tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Only 2% goes to Black families and 3% to Hispanic families. The average family benefit from preferential capital gains rates is nine times higher for white families than Black families and eight times higher than Hispanic families. The total cost of this tax expenditure: $146 billion in 2023, of which $135 billion went to white families. (Treasury OTA Working Paper 122; Treasury FY2025 Budget; Urban Institute; ITEP)

Two tax rates for two kinds of income. Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at a maximum of 20% (plus 3.8% net investment income tax for high earners). Ordinary income from wages is taxed at rates up to 37% (plus payroll taxes). This means income from wealth is taxed at roughly half the rate of income from work. Because white families hold a much larger share of financial assets (stocks, bonds, business interests), they benefit disproportionately from this lower rate. Capital gains comprised nearly 8% of white families’ income but less than 1% for Black and Hispanic families. (Tax Policy Center; CBO)

The class mechanism with racial consequences. The script’s reframe is important: the tax code doesn’t target Black families. It targets workers. But because of centuries of policy that determined who got to accumulate wealth, a tax code that favors wealth over work hits Black and Hispanic families hardest. The racial impact is real, but it’s downstream of the class mechanism. As ITEP notes: "99 percent of Americans of all races receive little or nothing from the lower rate for capital gains and dividends." The benefits flow overwhelmingly to the richest 1% — who are overwhelmingly white. (ITEP)

Related PM scripts: Who Actually Pays (PM Script 10), Two Tax Codes (PM Script 11), The Stepped-Up Basis (PM Script 5), Buy Borrow Die