Senate Democrats vote down minimum wage increase...

[DVC Sadie]

It's too bad that your family members feel this way, as it would certainly releive your heirs of any undue tax burden. I would think that someone would have to be pretty presumpuous, not to mention, straight up disrespectful, to think that way.


Plus, I figure, she gets to actually see her family enjoying their inheritance...I love the idea!

One of the biggest drawbacks for giving money yearly is that I have two (1 neice&1nephew) who still live at home, do not work, and are 23 and 27. They have never had to work or go out and make a living for themselves, so my dh and I do not want to feed into their behavior.

Heck, we told one of the other neices that we would pay for her college for 4 years but she had to get the grades each year for the tuition to be continued. Well she called and asked if she could just have the money instead because she wanted to go out to Colorado and snowboard for a year. Now she is 26 with a beautiful little girl and we have just offered once again to put her through college (in state) but has not gotten back to us, as of yet.

I love all of my neices, nephews and grandneice and would do anything to help them but there comes a time that they have to help themselves and take advantage of what is being offered.


I still haven't heard of a viable reason why the government deserves to collect estate taxes so they can spend the money on what they want with no regard to people who actually went out and earned it.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I still haven't heard of a viable reason why the government deserves to collect estate taxes so they can spend the money on what they want with no regard to people who actually went out and earned it.

I think the idea being the deceased's heirs did not actually earn the money, the deceased did. Seeing that the person who earned it is now out of the picture, their heirs are receiving taxable income, and Uncle Sam gets a cut. It's the American way, baby...

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Originally Posted by DVC Sadie


I still haven't heard of a viable reason why the government deserves to collect estate taxes so they can spend the money on what they want with no regard to people who actually went out and earned it.

The person that earned it isn't being taxed. They're dead.
The person(s) receiving it did not go out and earn it. It is income to them and should be taxed.

Yet if the Republicans have their way, the small business owner that started with nothing and is busting tail to earn it will be taxed up the wazzu all along the way while Skippy, who did nothing to earn it, won't have to pay a dime.
Ridiculous.

That's not to mention that for some, this wouldn't have been a minimum wage increase at all. If one is a tipped employee in a state with a minimum wage statute that does not have the tipped employee exception, this bill would have rendered said state laws with regard to the tipped employee exception unenforceable. Oh that's nice. So if you're a waitress in Washington State for example, your minimum wage would have gone down 5 bucks an hour. Thanks Dr. Frist. Would you like piss, spit, or sink gunk on your steak today?

If the Republicans are so concerned about the common man rather than their cronies, I'm sure the Democrats would be willing to pass a genuine minimum wage increase without strings attached.

 

[DVC Sadie]

The person that earned it isn't being taxed. They're dead.
The person(s) receiving it did not go out and earn it. It is income to them and should be taxed.

Yet if the Republicans have their way, the small business owner that started with nothing and is busting tail to earn it will be taxed up the wazzu all along the way while Skippy, who did nothing to earn it, won't have to pay a dime.
Ridiculous.

That's not to mention that for some, this wouldn't have been a minimum wage increase at all. If one is a tipped employee in a state with a minimum wage statute that does not have the tipped employee exception, this bill would have rendered said state laws with regard to the tipped employee exception unenforceable. Oh that's nice. So if you're a waitress in Washington State for example, your minimum wage would have gone down 5 bucks an hour. Thanks Dr. Frist. Would you like piss, spit, or sink gunk on your steak today?

If the Republicans are so concerned about the common man rather than their cronies, I'm sure the Democrats would be willing to pass a genuine minimum wage increase without strings attached.

I guess I see things differently. If we/you earned the income what gives the government (or anyone for that matter) the right to take the already taxed income to then choose how they want to spend it. It still is illogical to me.

Oh well I do think minimum wage should be increased and the death taxes abolished.

 

[salmoneous]

I guess I see things differently. If we/you earned the income what gives the government (or anyone for that matter) the right to take the already taxed income to then choose how they want to spend it. It still is illogical to me.

Not trying to make a rightness/wrongness statement, just to explain the "logic"...

Basically, we tax people when they get money. If the money comes from winning the lottery, it gets taxed. If it comes from interst on a loan, it gets taxed. If it comes from profit from selling a piece of land, it gets taxed. If it comes from working in a coal mine, it gets taxed. And if it comes from being a good relative and being given money from somebody who dies, it gets taxed.

There is no more "double taxation" on estate taxes than anything else you do with your money. If you take money you've already paid taxes on, and pay your plumber with it, he has to pay taxes on the money he receives. If you take money you've already paid taxes on, and pay interest on a loan, the person getting the interest had to pay taxes on it. And if you give money to somebody for being a friend or relative, they have to pay taxes on the money you give them, even though you've already paid taxes on it.

 

[froglady]

I guess I see things differently. If we/you earned the income what gives the government (or anyone for that matter) the right to take the already taxed income to then choose how they want to spend it. It still is illogical to me.

Oh well I do think minimum wage should be increased and the death taxes abolished.

ITA

I view income as something the original recipient was given in exchange for time, labor, or knowledge. Once it has been given, and taxes have been paid on it (and in this income group, taxes on salary is taxed at a higher rate than on lower income groups) it should be his/hers to give away or leave to whomever he/she chooses. As someone said, the heirs DIDN'T earn it, so why should it be taxed as income? Unless they are able to spend it all immediately, any interest or dividends they EARN from it WILL be taxed.

Or if they MUST tax it, they should depreciate it over the estimated lifetime of the recipient; ie, you're 40 years old when you inherit a 3,000,000 estate, your estimated lifespan is 70, so you should pay taxes on 100,000/year, plus any interest, capital gains, etc accrued on the original capital. That way families wouldn't have to sell off family homes, land, and farms just to pay the taxes.

 

[froglady]

Not trying to make a rightness/wrongness statement, just to explain the "logic"...

Basically, we tax people when they get money. If the money comes from winning the lottery, it gets taxed. If it comes from interst on a loan, it gets taxed. If it comes from profit from selling a piece of land, it gets taxed. If it comes from working in a coal mine, it gets taxed. And if it comes from being a good relative and being given money from somebody who dies, it gets taxed.

There is no more "double taxation" on estate taxes than anything else you do with your money. If you take money you've already paid taxes on, and pay your plumber with it, he has to pay taxes on the money he receives. If you take money you've already paid taxes on, and pay interest on a loan, the person getting the interest had to pay taxes on it. And if you give money to somebody for being a friend or relative, they have to pay taxes on the money you give them, even though you've already paid taxes on it.

All of which are reasons I support the Fair Tax.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I guess I see things differently. If we/you earned the income what gives the government (or anyone for that matter) the right to take the already taxed income to then choose how they want to spend it. It still is illogical to me.

Oh well I do think minimum wage should be increased and the death taxes abolished.

Think of it this way. Each seperate legal entity must pay taxes on its income. Now money changes hands in this economy multiple times over. Everytime someone spends it, someone else gets it as income. You get it. You spend it at the store. The store passes it on to Employees, Pays for equipment, etc, etc. Well the government doesn't put a tag on that money and say that money has been taxed, so nobody that receives it as income in the future gets taxed on it do they? Same principle applies to an inheritance. The recipient of an inheritance is a seperate legal entity and it is income to that entity and therefore should be taxable like any other income subject to reasonable exemptions of course just like any other type of income.