I see the point you're making, but I think that it's a different discussion than how waiters should be paid. I think it's hard to point to a $20 meal and say "it shouldn't cost that much" unless you know what they pay for their food, their rent, their utilities, etc. It would be a hard thing to legislate. I think it's better to let the market tell that restaurant how much is enough profit. If a place doesn't provide a good value to you, don't go. If enough people agree, that restaurant will either lower their prices or close. With a retail business like a restaurant, it's easy to let the market tell them what is enough. I think your ideas on this topic are better directed at profiteering in banking, finance and government contracts - sectors where individual consumers don't make decisions on value that affect the bottom line.^ This is the very idea that needs to be changed. What needs to be done is that margins have to be set at a reasonable level - and excessive profiteering needs to be checked. Again -- more of a social welfare ideal than a purely capitalistic one. You're talking of a pure capitalistic model where the competition is to maximize the bottom line and in doing so the ideal of passing every cost to the consumer exists. You try to change that ideal and introduce a new ideal into the mix where profits are limited and made more conservative and wages increased instead.
Am I being blasphemous enough for everyone