Minimum Wage Passes House

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So if I die before 2011, my wife is rich! After that, my family gets screwed.

Well then, you know what you need to do.

 

Soaked in green!

 

I kid because I care™

[YASNY]

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.

 

Maybe the opposition should call their bluff and pass it. They'll get their new minimum wage. No wait. That can't happen, because the Republicans would then get the credit. We can't have that now, can we? Block it!

[Texsox]

Maybe the opposition should call their bluff and pass it. They'll get their new minimum wage. No wait. That can't happen, because the Republicans would then get the credit. We can't have that now, can we? Block it!

 

Yep, both sides play the same game. It would end of conservatives complained about the GOP using it and liberals would complain about the Dems doing it. Complaining about the other party just ratchets up the us v. them that is quickly dividing the country and allowing out elected representatives to do whatever the hell they want. Citizens need to fix their own parties first.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, first, according to the story, if the Estate tax isn't repealed or changed, it reverts back to 55% for over $1 million.

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.

 

So let me get this straight. If someone inherits 1.75 million, only the last .75 million is actually taxed right? The first million is "free" so to speak. So someone with a 1.75 million dollar inheritance isn't really being taxed at 55% but really at like 23-25% right?

[EvilMonkey]

So let me get this straight. If someone inherits 1.75 million, only the last .75 million is actually taxed right? The first million is "free" so to speak. So someone with a 1.75 million dollar inheritance isn't really being taxed at 55% but really at like 23-25% right?

Not sure of the exact wording in the tax bill, but as it is reported, it says estates valued over $1 million, not the portion of estates valued over $1 million. It could be the way you described, but with the IRS, you never know. However, even if it is just the part over $1 million, it is still mine.

[Balta1701]

Not sure of the exact wording in the tax bill, but as it is reported, it says estates valued over $1 million, not the portion of estates valued over $1 million. It could be the way you described, but with the IRS, you never know. However, even if it is just the part over $1 million, it is still mine.

No, you are incorrect, it is just the part over the limit which is taxed. Non-partisan Factcheck.org.

 

The effective rate was far less for smaller estates. Of the 440 taxable family farm and business estates in 2004, two out of five paid an average rate of only 1.6 percent. These were taxable estates valued at less than $2 million.Very large estates valued at over $20 million paid at an average effective rate of just over 22 percent, a hefty tax bite but well short of "everything."

 

These effective rates are not to be confused with the top rate, which is currently 47 percent. But that marginal rate applies only to what is taxed, and currently the first $1.5 million of an estate is exempt. The Tax Policy Center's figures are an average effective rate on the entire estate, including any proceeds of life insurance. The taxable portion is often reduced further through charitable contributions or special provisions that allow most farms to reduce the taxable value of their real property by 40 to 70 percent of market value.

[EvilMonkey]

No, you are incorrect, it is just the part over the limit which is taxed. Non-partisan Factcheck.org.

Actually, I am NOT incorrect. Look at what I wrote. The ARTICLE says it the way I wrote it. I also said that it MAY BE the way you described, and that I did not know. I made no assertion of fact other that what the words were in the article. You assumed the rest.

[Texsox]

This week, the U.S. Senate will take up a bill tying a much-needed minimum wage increase for our nation's working poor to controversial tax cuts for heirs to large inheritances. Catholic leaders are prepared to speak to members of the media about the morality of this legislation, which flies in the face of Church teaching on fairness, opportunity, and the common good.

 

The bill went to the Senate after the House leadership-which initially balked at the idea of a minimum wage hike-saw an opportunity to shift the tax burden away from well-off Americans. The proposed tax cuts call for an estimated $268 million giveback to the richest estates while raising the pay rate for the poorest American's to only $7.25 per hour, which represents an annual salary of about $15,000 for a full-time worker. If passed, the new legislation will reduce tax rates on inheritances in excess of $5 million, and force the middle-class to shoulder an ever-increasing share of Federal taxes.

 

Concern for the common good - a founding principle of many faiths and of our nation itself - demands that we work to build a society in which all persons have the opportunity to reach their full human potential. Catholics believe that this means a fair day's work deserves a fair day's pay, and that those born to wealth and opportunity should bear their fair share of taxes.

 

If you would like to share this concern with your Senator, we encourage you to click here. This will take you to our partner group Network's Legislative Center.

Catholic Alliance for the Common Good | 1308 19th Street NW | Washington, DC 20036

202-822-5105 |

www.thecatholicalliance.org | [email protected]

[southsider2k5]

Its a 40% increase in net income for the lowest wage earners. Maybe we should have a congressional investigation into this windfall

[Gregory Pratt]

Maybe the opposition should call their bluff and pass it. They'll get their new minimum wage. No wait. That can't happen, because the Republicans would then get the credit. We can't have that now, can we? Block it!

 

You know, if I were in charge, we certainly would pass it, and then, I'll bet, George Bush would veto it.

 

Regardless, I hate the practice of merging things for this purpose. It lacks honesty.

[YASNY]

You know, if I were in charge, we certainly would pass it, and then, I'll bet, George Bush would veto it.

 

Regardless, I hate the practice of merging things for this purpose. It lacks honesty.

 

I agree. But those politicians are not going to tie their own hands. This isn't the exclusive technique of one party.

[Gregory Pratt]

I agree. But those politicians are not going to tie their own hands. This isn't the exclusive technique of one party.

 

No, you're right.

[southsider2k5]

And the senate shoots down the combo bill

[kapkomet]

WOOHOO! WE ALL WIN!

[Balta1701]

WOOHOO! WE ALL WIN!

Unless you're making minimum wage. Or very, very wealthy.

Edited August 4, 2006 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

Unless you're making minimum wage. Or very, very wealthy.

No, no, no...

 

WE ALL WIN!!! WOOOHOOO!!!

[mr_genius]

Or very, very wealthy.

 

 

or those who invest wisely. but only idiots do that

 

spend, spend, spend!

 

oh, and small businesses lose with the 'death tax', but screw them (the government deserves their possessions more then their families). Hell, they've only been taxed like 3 times on that stuff anyways.

Edited August 4, 2006 by mr_genius