Minimum Wage Passes House

[Gregory Pratt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

 

Republicans muscled the first minimum wage increase in a decade through the House 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.

 

The way I see it, is, "This is like robbing Harry Truman to pay for Franklin Roosevelt's estate." It certainly isn't progressive, or honest. It was calculated to die so that the Do-Nothing Republicans in Congress can pretend to Do-Something.

[YASNY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

The way I see it, is, "This is like robbing Harry Truman to pay for Franklin Roosevelt's estate." It certainly isn't progressive, or honest. It was calculated to die so that the Do-Nothing Republicans in Congress can pretend to Do-Something.

 

Wait. The Republics offer up a bill to lower taxes and raise minimum wage and the Democrats are going to kill it and it's the Republicans that are 'do nothing'? Here the Republicans are offering to 'do' two things and Democrats are blocking them. Speaking liberally here, what a crock!

[kapkomet]

What is wrong with eliminating the inheritance tax? Oh wait, more places to get government entitlements. Nevermind I get it.

[EvilMonkey]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

The way I see it, is, "This is like robbing Harry Truman to pay for Franklin Roosevelt's estate." It certainly isn't progressive, or honest. It was calculated to die so that the Do-Nothing Republicans in Congress can pretend to Do-Something.

While I am i no way rich now, with the life insurance I have, and the business I own (which would also be paid off if I die), my wife would inherit just about $2 million. I would like for her to keep that, not go to some government that didn't earn it, sweat for it, starve for it and pay for it. I earned the money, I am building the business, I am paying for the insurance (at a hefty price, I might add), and any benefit should belong to my family, not the government. I love this line from the story ""The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said" Like the taxes belonged to the government in the first place! No, you pompus ass (Reid, not you, Greg), the 'taxes' came from the very people you and the rest of the congressional idiots supposedly represent, the people.

[minors]

Sounds like do nothing democrats to me and blame the republicans which seems to be there strategy.

[NorthSideSox72]

While I actually agree with both of these moves individually, I do agree that these railroad rider bills fly in the face of the intended purpose of legislation. I'll state again my support of something like a Truth in Legislation Act, requiring bills to stay on topic. You want 2 bills? Send 2 bills. This would prevent all sorts of the B.S. underhanded stuff that goes on, keep the budget under control (since the add-ons often cost money), and allow REAL transparency for the American people. This means that people who choose to monitor Congress can more easily know who they are really voting for.

[EvilMonkey]

While I actually agree with both of these moves individually, I do agree that these railroad rider bills fly in the face of the intended purpose of legislation. I'll state again my support of something like a Truth in Legislation Act, requiring bills to stay on topic. You want 2 bills? Send 2 bills. This would prevent all sorts of the B.S. underhanded stuff that goes on, keep the budget under control (since the add-ons often cost money), and allow REAL transparency for the American people. This means that people who choose to monitor Congress can more easily know who they are really voting for.

I will agree in principle with what you said, it isn't as if the Republicans are the only party that has done this. It has been going on for quite a while on both sides, and is usually politically motivated to make the other side look bad by vetoing it. However, since there is nothgin wrong with it for now, I guess Dems have to decide what they want more, higher minimum wage or to tax dead people.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I can live with this bill.

 

I'm just more pissed about the hybridity of so many of these bills out there. It's just disgusting that they put riders in the bill that aren't on topic. It's such a perfect political ploy tool though that I see neither side getting rid of it (i.e. a bill that says "More funding for the troops but we're cutting funding/benefits for civil services" which got through a few years ago -- then when a person votes against the funding cut for civil servants, the other side can say "Well, see they don't support the troops!")

[mr_genius]

The bill is fine. a mimum wage increases is overdue as is a cut in the 'death tax'.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I can live with this bill.

 

I'm just more pissed about the hybridity of so many of these bills out there. It's just disgusting that they put riders in the bill that aren't on topic. It's such a perfect political ploy tool though that I see neither side getting rid of it (i.e. a bill that says "More funding for the troops but we're cutting funding/benefits for civil services" which got through a few years ago -- then when a person votes against the funding cut for civil servants, the other side can say "Well, see they don't support the troops!")

 

 

I agree with you on this one. How hard is it for Congress to vote on one issue and one issue alone. These riders are how tons and tons of pork get stuffed into everything that makes it through.

[Balta1701]

While I am i no way rich now, with the life insurance I have, and the business I own (which would also be paid off if I die), my wife would inherit just about $2 million. I would like for her to keep that, not go to some government that didn't earn it, sweat for it, starve for it and pay for it. I earned the money, I am building the business, I am paying for the insurance (at a hefty price, I might add), and any benefit should belong to my family, not the government. I love this line from the story ""The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said" Like the taxes belonged to the government in the first place! No, you pompus ass (Reid, not you, Greg), the 'taxes' came from the very people you and the rest of the congressional idiots supposedly represent, the people.

Well, that's great to know. And I'm sure you also know that the estate tax doesn't touch any estates valued at under $2 million.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, that's great to know. And I'm sure you also know that the estate tax doesn't touch any estates valued at under $2 million.

 

 

I think it's 1.5 million but I could be wrong. Anyway, Im fundamentally opposed to any estate tax of any kind. The people who built their estate did so by working hard and paying taxes on their earnings all through their lives. Why should the government get a second, and much larger, crack at that money just because it's being left to the heirs at the time of death?

[Balta1701]

I think it's 1.5 million but I could be wrong. Anyway, Im fundamentally opposed to any estate tax of any kind. The people who built their estate did so by working hard and paying taxes on their earnings all through their lives. Why should the government get a second, and much larger, crack at that money just because it's being left to the heirs at the time of death?

It's $2 million now, which I think is a very fair level. In 2009, it'll be increased all the way up to $3.5 million, as per current law. And it's also not "Much larger" by any stretch of the imagination, even on the largest estates (and when you get to those sized estates, a significant majority of the income has probably never been taxed anyway, due to it coming in the form of capitol gains.) Here's a chart of how small the impact actually is on almost any reasonably sized estate.

 

Edited July 30, 2006 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's $2 million now, which I think is a very fair level. In 2009, it'll be increased all the way up to $3.5 million, as per current law. And it's also not "Much larger" by any stretch of the imagination, even on the largest estates (and when you get to those sized estates, a significant majority of the income has probably never been taxed anyway, due to it coming in the form of capitol gains.) Here's a chart of how small the impact actually is on almost any reasonably sized estate.

 

 

 

Interesting you should mention capital gains as I believe that the current proposal would subject estates to the lower capital gains rate as opposed to any estate tax ( which run as high as 55% ). If an estate is liquidated before being transferred to heirs then, yes, there should be capital gains taxes paid on it but if shares of stock or property or whatever is transferred whole from the owner to their heir then it should not be taxed. If an heir decides to liquidate his/her share of the estate at a later time then they will still be subject to whatever the current capital gains tax rate is at the time.

[Texsox]

Ditto on the packing a bitter pill in a piece of candy. I think it is wrong whenever it's used.

 

We have moved waaay too far from why we even pay taxes.

 

First off we allow the government to collect money to pay for running this country. Not to stimulate the economy or anything like that. It's to pay for the services and benefits that the citizens receive.

 

How we collect those taxes shouldn't be so complex. Why have 1,000s of taxes? So they can pass increases easier. We need a simpler tax system and more accountability from those that are intrusted to spend that money. No more pretending there are free lunches. Balance the damn budget and if you can't, raise taxes or lower spending.

 

I want a statement at the end of the year that details every tax I paid, fuel taxes, income tax, sin taxes, property taxes, gains taxes, government user fees, etc. etc.

[Balta1701]

How we collect those taxes shouldn't be so complex. Why have 1,000s of taxes? So they can pass increases easier. We need a simpler tax system and more accountability from those that are intrusted to spend that money. No more pretending there are free lunches. Balance the damn budget and if you can't, raise taxes or lower spending.

 

I want a statement at the end of the year that details every tax I paid, fuel taxes, income tax, sin taxes, property taxes, gains taxes, government user fees, etc. etc.

You know as well as I do that the reason why we have so many different taxes, deductions, and so forth has nothing to do with making it easier to raise taxes. We have so many because each lobbyist with a ton of cash comes up with some exemption that will benefit his particular employer, and therefore it gets written into the tax code.

[Texsox]

You know as well as I do that the reason why we have so many different taxes, deductions, and so forth has nothing to do with making it easier to raise taxes. We have so many because each lobbyist with a ton of cash comes up with some exemption that will benefit his particular employer, and therefore it gets written into the tax code.

 

Exemptions only exist if there is a tax. So someone has an idea for a new tax, lobbyists figure out how to keep those with access from paying it, and a new tax is introduced. I believe we are both correct.

 

My point is it is easier to pass 100 $5 taxes than one $500 tax.

[Balta1701]

Exemptions only exist if there is a tax. So someone has an idea for a new tax, lobbyists figure out how to keep those with access from paying it, and a new tax is introduced. I believe we are both correct.

 

My point is it is easier to pass 100 $5 taxes than one $500 tax.

Well, then let me also point out that one of the big reasons new taxes are introduced is that thanks to the exemptions for the wealthy and powerful, the older taxes don't do the job of generating the funding that they should.

 

So, for example, 18 families can contribute a few hundred million dollars to a campaign to eliminate the estate tax, a move that would save them something like $70 billion, the government winds up needing to find a few hundred billion in funding somewhere, since we need those F-22's (no, don't ask why, we just do). And so other new taxes are born, and other new deductions are created, and so forth.

[Texsox]

^^^^^^

great point

[southsider2k5]

While I actually agree with both of these moves individually, I do agree that these railroad rider bills fly in the face of the intended purpose of legislation. I'll state again my support of something like a Truth in Legislation Act, requiring bills to stay on topic. You want 2 bills? Send 2 bills. This would prevent all sorts of the B.S. underhanded stuff that goes on, keep the budget under control (since the add-ons often cost money), and allow REAL transparency for the American people. This means that people who choose to monitor Congress can more easily know who they are really voting for.

 

Either that or we need a line item veto to be passed...

[NorthSideSox72]

Either that or we need a line item veto to be passed...

That, in my opinion, does too much to further the current wave in transfer of power to the executive. That branch has already grown too big for its britches.

[southsider2k5]

That, in my opinion, does too much to further the current wave in transfer of power to the executive. That branch has already grown too big for its britches.

 

Either way I think gives too much power to one branch. I think the legislative branch should only be working with one law in one bill, otherwise bundleing them, gives them too much power, while giving the executive branch the ability to pick and choose, gives them a lot of power. I would rather see neither have their abilities, but the line item veto is the proper balance to bundled bills IMO.

[Gregory Pratt]

So, the question asked me was, "REPUBLICANS ARE DOING NOT ONE THING BUT TWO THINGS LOLOLOLZ SO YOU CALL THEM DO-NOTHING?!?!?!"

 

Yes, and they are. Putting something in motion for the purpose of it being killed, just so you can say "Well I tried but the opposition blocked it!" is so Worst Republican Congress.

[Rex Kickass]

Either that or we need a line item veto to be passed...

 

If we did that, they'd keep the estate tax cut and lose minimum wage increases.

[EvilMonkey]

Well, that's great to know. And I'm sure you also know that the estate tax doesn't touch any estates valued at under $2 million.

Well, first, according to the story, if the Estate tax isn't repealed or changed, it reverts back to 55% for over $1 million.

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.

Second, I hope to have it grow in value more than it is now, so I can raise that $2 million number. So if I die before 2011, my wife is rich! After that, my family gets screwed.