Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

THOSE DARN demorats [Edited]


Recommended Posts

Minimum wage increase passes House

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republicans muscled the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House of Representatives early Saturday after pairing it with a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates.

Combining the two issues provoked protests from Democrats and was sure to cause problems in the Senate, where the minimum wage initiative was likely to die at the hands of Democrats opposed to the costly estate tax cuts.

The Senate is expected to take up the legislation next week.

Still, Republican leaders saw combining the wage and tax issues as their best chance for getting permanent cuts to the estate tax, a top Republican priority fueled by intense lobbying by farmers, small business owners and super-wealthy families such as the Waltons, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune.

"This is the best shot we've got; we're going to take it," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, a Republican. The unusual packaging also soothed conservatives angry about raising the minimum wage over opposition by Republican business allies.

The House passed the bill 230-180 before leaving for a five-week recess.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid vowed Democrats would kill the hybrid bill, along with its 10-year, $300 billion-plus cost.

"The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said. "Blackmailing working families will not change that outcome."

Republicans countered that Democrats opposed the bill to keep the issue alive for the November elections.

But Republicans also reveled in putting moderate Democrats in the uncomfortable position of voting against both the minimum wage increase and the estate tax cut -- and an accompanying bipartisan package of popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes.

The Republican package would increase the wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years.

Under current law, the estate tax is phased out completely by 2010, but jumps back to 55 percent on estates larger than $1 million in 2011.

The bill passed Saturday would exempt $5 million of an individual's estate, and $10 million of a couple's, from estate taxes by 2015. Estates worth up to $25 million would be taxed at capital gains rates, currently 15 percent and scheduled to rise to 20 percent. Tax rates on the remainder of larger estates would fall to 30 percent by 2015.

The maneuver was aimed at defusing the minimum wage increase as a campaign issue for Democrats while using the popularity of the increase to achieve the Republican Party's longtime goal of permanently cutting estate taxes.

That left Democrats fuming.

"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers, 'We'll raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America,"' said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.

Wait! So the Republicans muster up the strength to fight to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25! And yet are called the bad guys, for also trying to lower a morally repugnant, illegal tax....

Wow! :mellow: x100

Link to comment

The Estate tax is hardly morally repugnant. Not having it makes the rich richer and doesn't affect anyone else.

I think my parents have just enough money to be affected by the estate tax when they leave it to me, and guess what? I don't give a shit. I consider taxes to be an investment in my country. It's like a membership fee. Anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes shouldn't be able to drive on public roads, get healthcare, go to school, be defended by the military, etc, etc etc. The reason the top 2% pay so many taxes is because that's fair; they can afford to pick up the slack and take care of poor people. That's how society works. You help each other. Not wanting to pay estate taxes is antisocial.

The only people affected by the estate tax are rich people. Why should we help rich people make it so their children never have to work? Conservatives bitch and moan about welfare all the time; well this is just welfare for people who don't need it.

On the other hand, I am completely in favor of raising minimum wage all the way up to $10 an hour and possibly higher. I don't know how it is in other cities, but you cannot live in Seattle on a minimum wage job. You probably couldn't afford to live in the city with a less than $15 an hour job.

But it's idiotic to combine the two into one bill. This is just sick political manuevering on the part of the Republicans. "We can't pass our bill because it's bullshit so let's put it together with something that people actually want." If they really gave a shit about raising minimum wage they'd pass a minimum wage bill, alone. But they don't, because poor people are useless wastes of flesh and resources, and we should never help anyone.

Link to comment

To be fair, the raising of minimum wage does cause people to lose jobs and wages on average to drop.

But it's just politics. If Democrats did it the Republicans would be screaming bloody murder too.

Now that makes no economic sense. Seven dollarsish an hour is sheer pittance- even a small business can afford to pay living wages- defined as ten dollars or more per hour- and still make a healthy profit. Large corporations, such as Walmart, Microsoft, ect, won't even feel it- it'll be maybe a high hundred thousand or so's difference, when their stocks are dependent on fluctuations of millions of dollars.

No. The problem isn't that we're close to paying people too much. The problem is that we're close to paying them too little. A higher minimum wage- one high enough, say, to diminish the poverty rate- generates a perception of relative prosperity, and thus an increase in consumer spending. Though I personally wouldn't advocate a "minimum" as high as fifteen per, the newest increase in wages at least catches up with our constant inflation- it's a lot better than the status quo in terms of both economic growth and social welfare.

Link to comment

Now that makes no economic sense. Seven dollarsish an hour is sheer pittance- even a small business can afford to pay living wages- defined as ten dollars or more per hour- and still make a healthy profit. Large corporations, such as Walmart, Microsoft, ect, won't even feel it- it'll be maybe a high hundred thousand or so's difference, when their stocks are dependent on fluctuations of millions of dollars.

No. The problem isn't that we're close to paying people too much. The problem is that we're close to paying them too little. A higher minimum wage- one high enough, say, to diminish the poverty rate- generates a perception of relative prosperity, and thus an increase in consumer spending. Though I personally wouldn't advocate a "minimum" as high as fifteen per, the newest increase in wages at least catches up with our constant inflation- it's a lot better than the status quo in terms of both economic growth and social welfare.

Yes, they can pay that. But they don't want to, so they lower the wages of incoming employees. It's happened time and time again thanks to minimum wage. But it's better than the other end of companies paying employees next to nothing.

And the whole idea of increasing consumer spending has been proven false time and time again. Poor people spend just as much a percentage of their money as middle-class people.

Link to comment

Okay kids, I know there's dislike for other parties but let's not get carried away and swear at them in thread titles please.

Even though minimum wage laws aren't the predominant cause of unemployment, it does raise the unemployment rate because companies are less willing to hire at workers at a higher cost to them. It's not that the company isn't going to feel the loss of revenue because of a 50cent increase, it's that they want to maximize revenue as much as possible. Also, one too many workers can lower productivity rate in a company.

Link to comment

"Morally repugnant" is a matter of opinion, James. I personally find it to be quite a good tax, as it takes only money over a high threshold and only from dead people, who don't really need it as far as anyone can tell. I am against bills that do multiple things, as they are simply a political tool, and one that is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.

Link to comment

"Morally repugnant" is a matter of opinion, James. I personally find it to be quite a good tax, as it takes only money over a high threshold and only from dead people, who don't really need it as far as anyone can tell. I am against bills that do multiple things, as they are simply a political tool, and one that is, in my opinion, morally repugnant.

Isn't it inmoral to take from the dead if you're not a loved one?

Link to comment

America was built on the concepts of self-determination and limited government. The estate tax violates both those principles.

The Estate tax is hardly morally repugnant. Not having it makes the rich richer and doesn't affect anyone else.

How so?

yes, it is.

I consider taxes to be an investment in my country. It's like a membership fee. Anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes shouldn't be able to drive on public roads, get healthcare, go to school, be defended by the military, etc, etc etc. The reason the top 2% pay so many taxes is because that's fair; they can afford to pick up the slack and take care of poor people. That's how society works. You help each other.

They >>> already <<< payed higher taxes on THEIR money...!

Not wanting to pay estate taxes is antisocial.

:ohmy: ................ :mellow: ............. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ....... :mellow: / :rolleyes:

The only people affected by the estate tax are rich people. Why should we help rich people make it so their children never have to work?

Because it's THEIR (already higher taxed) money!

EOS!

Why would it be?

Everyone needs to share resources... That's how society works.

No..no....just..NO! :mellow: x 1,000,000

1. We're talking about the (capitalist) US.

2. Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

3. Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

4. Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

5. Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

*See Amendment IX ^

6. Samuel Adams - 20 Nov. 1772

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can--Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature!”

Link to comment

But it's idiotic to combine the two into one bill. This is just sick political manuevering on the part of the Republicans. "We can't pass our bill because it's bullshit so let's put it together with something that people actually want." If they really gave a shit about raising minimum wage they'd pass a minimum wage bill, alone. But they don't, because poor people are useless wastes of flesh and resources, and we should never help anyone.

pretty much sums it up here.

Link to comment

limited government died a long time ago. Basically, we've already broken enough of the bill of rights for various reasons, good or bad, that to break it again for a good one is meaningless. I also have yet to hear any good argument against the estate tax.

Link to comment

limited government died a long time ago. Basically, we've already broken enough of the bill of rights for various reasons, good or bad, that to break it again for a good one is meaningless. I also have yet to hear any good argument against the estate tax.

youre right so why bother limiting government at all any more? and we should just shred up the bill of rights while we're at it.

Link to comment

They >>> already <<< payed higher taxes on THEIR money...!

Well, actually, rich people pay lower taxes than everyone else. percentage-wise.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be fair:

1. You're taking amendments out of context.

2. As far as I recall, laws tend to apply mainly to the living.

3. They are dead, it is a very reasonably seizure.

Link to comment

Estate tax takes funds away from an already impoverished government that currently exists only on an unwieldy mountain of debt? Every little bit helps, and the Reaganomics idiocy about the trickle-down effect is pure bull-crap.

And the idea of limited government pretty much shattered when we both passed the 100th million citizen mark, and entered the Industrial Age. It only makes sense to have Small, Unassuming Governments as an agricultural society... unfortunately, it was Hamilton's dream, not Jefferson's, that won out in the end.

That's not to say that Big, Overbearing Government's absolutely necessary in this day and age, but rather that regulation is both necessary and healthy under our current economic makeup- which, by the way, isn't so much Capitalist as it is Mixed, sharing properties with Socialism as well. So far, it's proven to be a lot more stable than either alternative.

Link to comment

youre right so why bother limiting government at all any more? and we should just shred up the bill of rights while we're at it.

better to tear away the veil and start anew than to fool ourselves into thinking it can protect us.

also, as Venom pointed out, I know citizens are supposed to be protected, but does that really include dead people?

Link to comment

America was built on the concepts of self-determination and limited government. The estate tax violates both those principles.

Self-determination means self-determination by the individual states, not the individual themself. So unless rich people have become states in and of themselves that doesn't apply here.

As for limited government, how does an estate tax violate limited government? It's... it's a tax. All governments need taxes. Sort of like how people need food. Without income the government can't do anything. And the simple fact is, the governmetn isn't making enough income right now.

The estate tax only affects people leaving more than $1 million or so, right? So, how many people leave $1 million to their kids? Answer: Rich people. So, if there is no estate tax, rich people get richer because their money they give to their kids isn't taxed. I suppose I should say that rich people's kids get richer.

It doesn't affect anyone else because other people aren't leaving $1 million, and so won't be taxed.

How is charging money from dead people morally repugnant? They're DEAD.

No. They paid more. As Venom said, statistically rich people pay the lowers tags compared to everyone else.

Link to comment

Ownership does not necessarily equate to entitlement anyhow. For most people, the "finders keepers, losers weepers" logic is rightfully abandoned with the rest of childhood- just because you have it doesn't mean you deserve it.

Self-determination, when applied to private individuals, makes absolutely no sense. Especially after factoring in human greed. The Bill of Rights was written to ensure that the powerful wouldn't prey upon the weak- not to enslave the government to every whim and fancy of its private citizens.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...