geek_mars: How many billions are unflipped burgers worth?

That possibility is that McDonald's could double its restaurant-worker wages and not increase its prices at all ... but instead just make a little less money. In other words, it could better balance the interests of all three of its stakeholders - shareholders, customers, and employees - instead of shafting employees to deliver as much profit as possible to shareholders.
According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits.
If that ratio holds true worldwide, McDonald's would have spent about $4.7 billion on salaries and benefits last year, on revenue of $27 billion. Meanwhile, the company made about $8.5 billion of operating income. (This is for the corporate parent, not the franchises.).
If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.
Importantly, however, $5.5 billion is still a lot of money. McDonald's would still be very profitable.
Big Macs would still cost the same as they do today (billions and billions wo ...

MayoSlather: There are morals that are innate and key to our survival as a species, and there are also very consistent things that cause suffering and joy in all people.

The wealthy you're defending are not abiding by these morals. They don't care about preserving the planet, they don't care about the quality of life of others, all they care about is any excuse to take more for themselves.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Because you say so? Well I say different. As do a majority of Americans

geek_mars: I'm guessing from this statement you're not a big tipper

geek_mars: I'd gladly pay an extra few cents per item if it meant every cashier in that store could earn a living wage

MayoSlather: That Guy Jeff: No, I want all people protected from theft. You input your labor, your skills, your time. You get out resources, usually in the common form of "money". That money is yours. I don't care if it's $10 or $10,000,000, the only way that money should leave your hands is you voluntarily agreeing to part with it. If someone walks up and says "give me that money or else", it's morally wrong. At least to me. See, you think it's OK if the guy taking the money is going to use it for something you think is going to create a " functioning society with a happier healthier populace ". But I don't care how good the expected (but not guaranteed) outcome is. It's still wrong to walk up to someone and say "give me that money or else". That's the difference; I don't think the ends justify the means. It's OK that we differ on this, just know that I'm going to vote, petition, and fight tooth and nail to prevent the concept "personal property" from being meaningless. And, as it turns out, the people who agree that personal property is meaningful tend to have more of it expend defending it, so I wouldn't hold your breath for your side "winning" anytime soon. :)

Again, you're dismissing the fact that leverage exists. It's not stealing from anyone, it's paying people a living wage for their work instead of taking all the profits simply because you're in a position to do so.

The investor class is essentially modern day feudal lords that drive all the monetary gains of the working class to themselves. This is simply sophisticated thievery. However you think it's theft when people who are exploited for their efforts get a much bigger slice of that pie that they made themselves.

Your logic is twisted.

ChildOfBhaal: That Guy Jeff:  I don't think the ends justify the means.

You keep saying this, and saying that your opponents do think that the end justifies the means.  I'm not sure if it's intentional or unintentional, but you're fundamentally misunderstanding their opponents arguments.  Your opponents are not saying, in defending the state's ability to tax, that the desirable ends (expenditures by the state for the common good) justify the immoral means ("theft").  They're saying that the means is unobjectionable (i.e. that taxation by the state is clearly different than being set upon by highwaymen).  Argue your case, but don't put words in their mouths or consider settled things that they've never conceded (that taxation is theft).

ChildOfBhaal: The state brings a good deal more moral authority to the table, for starters.  However one feels about the government, one must concede that it does more good works (the military and the interstates, at least, right?) and employs more benevolent rhetoric than a bandit does (Robin Hood possibly excepted).

ChildOfBhaal: The state also conferred the property rights that you hold so dear.  Before we came up with the notion of the polity, your property consisted of whatever you could pile within range of your spear.  It was only after some sort of legal system was put in place that property consisted of anything more than mere possession of an object or that theft became a concept.  If the state conferred property rights, I'd say that it's somewhat more justified in partially dispelling those rights than some churlish footpad.

ChildOfBhaal: Finally, the state, unlike the desperado, acts under color of law.  The same tax code that you feel coerces you also constrains the governments actions.  There are significant restrictions on the time and manner in which the state can seize your property, as well as on the amount of property that can be seized.  The state, unlike the brigand, will afford you due process when it seizes your property.