Senate Democrats vote down minimum wage increase...

[kydisneyfans]

With the Republicans in control of Congress, why could this estate bill have not been initiated and passed separate from minimum wage? They did not want Big City paper headlines to read: REPUBLICANS VOTE DOWN MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

It was purposely added to attempt to villianize the Dems for not passing the minimum wage bill. Unfortunately it will likely backfire and make the Republicans look even that much worse.

 

[need_a_Disney_fix]

The republicans are once again holding the working poor hostage to their rich cronies. Why anyone would vote republican is beyond me.

Sorry...its a bad habit I have and there is no cure for...thank goodness.

 

[Charade]

The republicans are once again holding the working poor hostage to their rich cronies. .

Yep, that's it.

So there are NO rich Democrats??

 

[eclectics]

Really? If you think it would have passed on it's own, this means the Republicans are really for it. That's how it should be "spun". But the word is that the Republicans knew the Estate Tax bill wouldn't pass so they had no worries about the minimum wage bill being passed.

What? You've been spinning so much I think you're getting dizzy.

 

[salmoneous]

Just more political infighting. Honestly, I'm really sick of it.

Look, let's be honest. There was no way the Republicans would ever let the minimum wage increase go into effect. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Had this vote gone through, they would have just killed or gutted the increase in conference or elsewhere.

There was never a moment when this vote was about how to run the country. It was about political infighting from the very start. This bill was put out there, and this vote was taken, for the one and only purpose of allowing people to claim that somehow the lack of in increase in the minimum wage is the Democrats fault.

The only reason Republicans in Congress went through this exercise was so that people like you could start threads like this one. And you took them up on it.

If you really are sick of political infighting, don't play the game. Don't start threads like this one, where you use some semantic or legislative stunt to bad mouth the other side.

 

[kirbsam]

The republicans are once again holding the working poor hostage to their rich cronies. Why anyone would vote republican is beyond me.

maybe you worked your way up from being dirt poor, and you worked your fingers to the bones to get through college. you did it on your own, and now that you have realized the american dream, you just want to hold onto the money that you worked so hard to earn.

 

[NewJersey]

Just put the minimum wage increase to an up or down vote. Nothing attached..no gimmicks. Just vote on increasing the minimum wage so maybe Congress actually gets something done for a change.

 

[jimmiej]

Because the Democrats have an ounce of fiscal responsibility. They understand that the massive proposed tax cut would lead to massive borrowing, even more debt, even more interest that all of us would have to pay.

Either you understand that, or you don't. And if you understand it, why on earth are you in favor of something that rings up massive amount of debt that you are going to have to help pay off?

Tax cuts equal more money to spend, save, or invest, all good things that cause more money to come into the federal treasury. Reagan proved that in the 80's. JFK understood it in the 60's.

 

[Planogirl]

Tax cuts equal more money to spend, save, or invest, all good things that cause more money to come into the federal treasury. Reagan proved that in the 80's. JFK understood it in the 60's.

I use a similar argument to show support for the minimum wage increase but for some reason that seems to be different. Trickle down economics only seem to work if you're a rich Republican.

 

[Free4Life11]

Good. $7.25 is way too much of a raise.

 

[Charade]

Look, let's be honest. There was no way the Republicans would ever let the minimum wage increase go into effect. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Had this vote gone through, they would have just killed or gutted the increase in conference or elsewhere.

There was never a moment when this vote was about how to run the country. It was about political infighting from the very start. This bill was put out there, and this vote was taken, for the one and only purpose of allowing people to claim that somehow the lack of in increase in the minimum wage is the Democrats fault.

The only reason Republicans in Congress went through this exercise was so that people like you could start threads like this one. And you took them up on it.

If you really are sick of political infighting, don't play the game. Don't start threads like this one, where you use some semantic or legislative stunt to bad mouth the other side.

Well, gee, I'd thought I'd counter some of the other threads that complained about the Republicans voting down the minimum wage (which wasn't true).

Have we become so cynical that we can't believe that a perceived "stunt" might be an attempt at compromise?

 

[salmoneous]

Tax cuts equal more money to spend, save, or invest, all good things that cause more money to come into the federal treasury. Reagan proved that in the 80's.

No, he didn't, but that can be another debate for another day. For now, let's focus on whether *this* tax cut would somehow so stimulate *this* economy that it would pay for itself. And every serious economist who has run the numbers has said, "no". You can't possibly get a big enough boost in our economy to have the tax cut magically pay for itself. Most think that the impact on the economy pays back about 5% of the lost revenue. The most pro-tax cut guys get the payback up to 10%.

But that still leaves - at best - 90% of the tax cut digging a hole in the treasury. A hole that you, I and every other tax payer is going to have to pay interest on year after year after year until someday we have to pay taxes to pay off the debt.

Are you so eager for Paris Hilton to get a tax cut that you are willing to pitch in your share of the debt and interest that her tax cut will create?

 

[Chuck S]

First off, this tax cut would not effect the people that EARNED the money..so don't say it would allow people to "hold onto" their hard earned money...for those that would benefit were not the ones that earned it...it is an ESTATE tax.

 

[salmoneous]

Have we become so cynical that we can't believe that a perceived "stunt" might be an attempt at compromise?

I believe that politicians - both Democrats and Republicans - put some bills out there that are honest compromises, and put other bills out there that are political stunts.

I don't believe for a second this minimum wage vote was anything but a political stunt. Do you believe - in your honest opinion - that this was a good faith effort on the part of Republicans to form a compromise they felt would go through?

If that's what you honestly believe, we'll this will just be another issue we disagree on. Maybe we can go back to agreeing on term limits and kicking Kennedy out of the Senate?

 

[Sirius]

I knew that was coming.

Apparently they are more concerned with the "rich" keeping more of their money than low income earners making more money.

The Republicans have been in control of congress since 1994 and yet haven't raised the minimum wage in 10 years. (they've raised their own pay by $35,000 but that's another issue.) If this were anything other than a republican (and your) attempt at election year politics we'd discuss it. The republicans should be ashamed of themselves for using minimum wage earners as an election year pawn. Boo to them and you.

 

[Charade]

Are you so eager for Paris Hilton to get a tax cut that you are willing to pitch in your share of the debt and interest that her tax cut will create?

This is the flipped around mindset that drives me crazy.

Who is anyone to tell a person of wealth that they're not paying enough in taxes?

The ONLY reason the rich are taxed higher than others is BECAUSE THEY CAN BE. And somewhere along the line, people like you, thought well, they can afford it so they should pay more and have a moral obligation to pay more.. And by more, I mean a higher percentage.

They can "afford" it.

If a rich person walks into a car dealer and buys a new car, should they be taxed at a higher rate than a person of modest means? Just because they can afford more taxes?

If you read the IRS defintion of the Estate tax, in a lot of cases, it's DOUBLE taxation. Are you ok with that?

Reminder: Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly-traded securities, small amounts of other easily-valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly-held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 do not require the filing of an estate tax return. The amount was $1,500,000 in 2004 and 2005. For 2006 through 2008, the amount is raised to $2,000,000.

Q: What is the Estate Tax?

The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of Cash and Securities, Real Estate, Insurance, Trusts, Annuities, Business interests and other assets.

Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include Mortgages and other Debts, Estate Administration expenses, property that passes to Surviving Spouses and Qualified Charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.

After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit. Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans.

 

[Charade]

First off, this tax cut would not effect the people that EARNED the money..so don't say it would allow people to "hold onto" their hard earned money...for those that would benefit were not the ones that earned it...it is an ESTATE tax.

The IRS doesn't care how the wealth was created. Income, real estate, investments, etc. If I saved $1000 a month after taxes for the 40 years I worked, that would be taxed again because it's part of my estate. So in fact, the "hard earned" money would be taxed again.

They take all of that into account to figure the net worth of your estate. If it's above the threshold, you (your estate) have to pay taxes on it. So if you bought a house 30 years ago and it's paid off, the house will be assesed another tax after your death. That's just wrong.

 

[salmoneous]

This is the flipped around mindset that drives me crazy.

Who is anyone to tell a person of wealth that they're not paying enough in taxes?

I'm not telling anyone they are paying not enough, or too much in taxes.

What I do know that as long as the government spends, somebody has to pay. Period. If Paris Hilton pays less, other people have to pay more. Period. If we pass a tax cut for Paris Hilton, the government will have to borrow more. You, I and every other tax payer are going to have to pay taxes to cover the interest on that debt year after year, and eventually pay taxes to pay off the debt.

I'm not talking philosophy here. I am talking reality. I'm not asking if you think Paris Hilton is paying enough in taxes. I'm asking if you are fine with *you* paying taxes to cover interest and debt so that Paris Hilton can get a tax break.

I don't want to pay tax taxes to cover the interest on money borrowed to give Paris Hilton a tax break. Do you?

 

[salmoneous]

So if you bought a house 30 years ago and it's paid off, the house will be assesed another tax after your death. That's just wrong.

Just as a nitpicky point, there is no tax on the capital gains for your house as it grows in value. The estate tax would be the first tax on the gain, not "another".

 

[NewJersey]

Here's a calculator based on 2004 tax law on how much estate tax you would owe (I calcuated using my parent's net worth) - $0 owed (and their net worth is above the top 2% threshold).

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2126/1/119?TopicID=1

And now theoretically, the exemptions are higher. I believe it's up to 2.5 million.