Actually, the only way that the Republican leadership of the house would allow a vote on the issue is if the Estate... oops... sorry... death tax was on the bill too.

Seems a bit cynical. The Republicans don't really want to raise the minimum wage, but they don't want to vote against it in an election year...

I've read the Constitution backwards and forwards, and I've never been able to find that article or amendment that allows the government to dictate what companies pay their employees. Must be in one of those penumbra thingamagigs, written in invisible ink.

Actually, Frawg is correct, but something tells me if Denny Hastert had told Congressional Democrats, "just set the minimum wage at what ever level you think is fair, and we'll support it", the Donks would have accused the Republicans of election year politics. I doubt there is a position that Republicans could take on this issue for which they wouldn't get criticized. And, of course, it is always a win/win for Democrats. Republicans oppose an increase - campaign issue for Democrats. Republicans support an increase - unemployment goes up - campaign issue for Democrats. Tax cuts for the RICH at the expense of the poor. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

The changes to the estate tax proposed by the Republicans are expected to cost about $62 billion per year (July 29 WaPo).
The proposed change to the minimum wage ($2.10 phased in over three years) is too little, too late.
The Senate needs to block this bill and the media needs to alert people to this shameless bid to provide tax cuts to the ultra-rich through a pathetically transparent scheme.
Though I personally love rich folks -- they're delicious when properly prepared.

I don't understand why we have to subsidize the working poor. They had the same chances and challenges I did growing up. If they would only put down the 40 and the crack pipe and pick up some reference books and study a bit more they would be making more money and this would not be an issue. Look, I pulled myself up by the bootstraps. No one helped me. Everyday I say to my wife Kirin and my son Tad "there ain't nothin that a steady job and good credit can't getcha". I'll be gosh darned if I'm going to have my hard earned tax dollars dolled out to the likes of those illegals flooding in here like rat's off a sinking ship. If they only played the lotto and got some money like Earl on TV, they could work on their list too!

I read the comments by some of our legislators thay say it's all about compromise. We tie the estate tax in to the minimum wage and everybody goes home happy. What's wrong with that? We get some, they get some. Compromise. Get it?

May God bless W's wisdom and leadership.

-I don't understand why we have to subsidize the working poor.

how is raising the min. wage subsidizing anything?

you don't understand why there is a minimum wage because you're a typical con who has be trained not to see the real world, no go back to church and confess your sins...Then explain why we have to subsidize the uber-wealthy...

-May God bless W's wisdom and leadership.
***** 7 MINUTES ****
you brainwashed twit

All right fiscal conservatives, let's take a look see:

The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. That's $41.20 a day. $206 a week. Or $10,712 a year. Before taxes

OK, I'll play the game.

-I don't understand why we have to subsidize the working poor

Because we're a compassionate society? Just guessing.

how is raising the min. wage subsidizing anything?

So, paying $7.15/hour to someone who has no skills and is only worth $5.00/hour to your bottom line is not a subsidy? Actually, every time the minimum wage is adjusted, wages all up the ladder go up, especially union wages, so, in addition to subsidizing mediocrity at the bottom, the Donks get to reward their biggest contributor farther up the ladder. As I said in a previous comment, it's a win/win for Donks.

you don't understand why there is a minimum wage because you're a typical con who has be (sic) trained not to see the real world, no (sic)go back to church and confess your sins...Then explain why we have to subsidize the uber-wealthy... (are you referring to Teddy, heh?)

-May God bless W's wisdom and leadership.
***** 7 MINUTES ****
you brainwashed twit

See what you get, Raker, when you pretend to be someone you're not. Talk about eating your own. ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Or $10,712 a year. Before taxes

That would certainly make me want to do whatever it took to get a better job.

Yikes!

Opus, shhhhh, come over here, that's it, closer. (leaning into your ear)...don't ya get it? Quiet, come here a little closer. Bub...don't tell anyone, but I'm on your side. See? It's all a ruse. They'll never guess I'm a lib. Don't blow this thing for me. Now gowan get outta here.

Yeesh...

Salvelinus,

Explain to me in very clear terms why DEATH should be a taxable event.

Opus writes, you brainwashed twit.

Doesn't add much to the discourse, does it?

If you want to clean up this board, there is a starting point.

So Georgia you are for double taxation then is what you are saying.

These people were taxed their whole lives on that income and then when they die they are taxed again...it's ridiculous.

The Death Tax should have been repealed long ago.

ash,

"The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. That's $41.20 a day. $206 a week. Or $10,712 a year. Before taxes"

Except hardly anyone makes the minimum wage. At least not anyone working full-time. My son got a summer job working for a landscaping company paying $9.00 per hour. And he has no skills. The local McDonalds around here are paying $8.75 to start, with benefits, and raises every three menths.

As for "before taxes". Except for FICA, very, very little would be taken out in federal or state withholding. Even FICA withholding would be minimal.

ash,

"The minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. That's $41.20 a day. $206 a week. Or $10,712 a year. Before taxes"

Except hardly anyone makes the minimum wage. At least not anyone working full-time. My son got a summer job working for a landscaping company paying $9.00 per hour. And he has no skills. The local McDonalds around here are paying $8.75 to start, with benefits, and raises every three months.

As for "before taxes". Except for FICA, very, very little would be taken out in federal or state withholding. Even FICA withholding would be minimal.

So Georgia you are for double taxation then is what you are saying.

These people were taxed their whole lives on that income and then when they die they are taxed again...it's ridiculous.

The Death Tax should have been repealed long ago.

And Ash...who is paid the Minimum Wage today? Almost no one. 16 year old kids working at McDonald's make more than that.

Of course when you raise the Minimum Wage you also increase illegal immigration as well as more and more will come over for a guaranteed higher job.

Brilliant thinking. Less jobs and more illegal immigration...brilliant.

If you support the minimum wage increase, then you are pro middle class. If you are against it, then you are pro upper class.

"filthy rich white liberals"
Another Limbaugh bumper sticker slogan. I know a lot of liberals. They are not rich and they bathe regularly. They are also various races / colors.

The Republicans are only trying to make themselves look good before the election. They know the bill will not pass the Senate.

"Explain to me in very clear terms why DEATH should be a taxable event."

Okay, to pay off the deficit. Is that simple enough?

Think of it this way:

It makes sure that people actually have to earn their wealth instead of running around on you dead father's dime.

Warrior-

If noone is actually paid the minimum wage, then what would it matter if we raised it?

The truth of the matter is that inflation has outpaced the growth of income of about two thirds of the nation's workers.

I want to know why there is ONE federal minimum wage anyways...

I'm in favor of a base... but the cost of living is clearly vastly different across the country...

so why should someone in a cheaper place get more purchasing power at the "minimum" then someone in an expensive place...

That's why there are state minimum wages... me thinks there is a constitutional question here that the courts should look at... is a federal minimum wage inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional?

I could see a clear argument that it treats different people differently, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment.

So considering the lowest end workers in society just got a raise for doing nothing different...do all the rest of us get a raise as well? With the same percentage (38.83% increase as these folks are receiving)?

What a deal....how do I get mine?

I said "almost no one"...reading comprehension is a lost art.

Now, when you raise minimum wage, then the guy that was making $7.00 an hour (above Minimum wage) now has to have his wages raised as well and you can bet your bottom dollar taking him to $7.15 isn't going to cut it...you'll have to raise his to about $9.15 and the dominos keep falling from there.

The minimum wage WAS NEVER intended to be a living wage, it was meant to prevent employers from paying slave wages and to put a benchmark in. If you are making those types of wages, you are either very young (teenager) or have no skills at all. It will either incentivize you very quickly to stay in school or get a better job...that's the point.

Oh that's rich Georgia. Now you're talking about people actually earning their money .... I guess you are for abolishing Welfare then immediately since those people aren't "earning" their wealth either.

Oh the slippery slope we go.

The Death Tax is just wealth distribution, nothing more. The day Ted Kennedy takes all of his money out of his tax Shelters and pays the death tax will be when I support it's continuance. Until then, families should have the ability to pass on their businesses, their farms, etc to generations without having to pay Uncle Sam a second time on taxes they have already paid to him for a lifetime.

Double Taxation is uniquely UN AMERICAN...maybe that's why liberals support it...they're usually un American too.

Warrior-

Actually, several democrats in the house want to pass exceptions for the owners of small buisinesses and farms.

Tell me, where would the defecit go if this tax were repealed?

I had a boss some twenty years ago who explained wages to me very clearly. There are jobs that only pay so much.
Regardless of how well you do that job, it is only worth so much to an employer.

What the libs don't get or refuse to concede is that if taxes or wages or other costs are artificially forced upward, the business will do whatever it takes to maintain profitability, by raising prices, not hiring or giving raises, or by not expanding the business. Nationally or regionally, that stalls economies

It’s like what I tell my daughter about the way the world works; everything costs something, especially the stuff that is free.

Why do we have to tie the two issues together? If honest debate is needed on the minimum wage issue, than debate it separately. It is a separate issue.
The bill before legislature should address it separately. If your discourse is so right, so real, it should have no problem failing and letting voters understand why there should be no increase. If, the issue has to be clouded or tied with another controversial issue in order to fail, then the logic and reasoning behind its apparent lack of justification also fails.

In other words, you know its just. You know its right. But strictly for corporate greed and the political support it pays dues to, you justify the rational that will not allow the working poor a teensy tiny bit of allowance for literally slave labor.

So you justify it by saying that in this case we have "trickle up". Well here's the litmus test. Lets see if raising the minimum wage trickles up. In today ever "flourishing" economy I do not see that happening. Instead, for goodness sake, throw the working poor a bone, will ya.

Georgia...I don't care where the deficit goes if this tax is repealed. That doesn't justify the tax now does it?

How about CUTTING SPENDING to reduce the deficit...has anyone tried that the last 30 years?

Georgia...I don't care where the deficit goes if this tax is repealed. That doesn't justify the tax now does it?

How about CUTTING SPENDING to reduce the deficit...has anyone tried that the last 30 years?

Raker...it's called compromise. GOP wants death tax repealed, the Donkeys want minimum wage hike.

In the old days this would be hammered out and both sides could get a victory. Not today, it's all 100% hate Bush from the left so nothing gets done.

Tell me, where would the defecit go if this tax were repealed?

The same place the defecit (sic) went when taxes were REDUCED the past several years.

Geeeesh, is there no basic economics taught in school at all? Guess it was replaced with condoms on cucumbers.

Tell me, where would the defecit go if this tax were repealed?

The same place the defecit (sic) went when taxes were REDUCED the past several years.

Geeeesh, is there no basic economics taught in school at all? Guess it was replaced with condoms on cucumbers.

GF:
You are still not listening, raising taxes does not cause tax receipts to go up, they go down for the reasons stated in my recent post.
Tax increases stifle economies

When you have business friendly tax rates, money pours in to the treasury. Its happening as I type this. It happens every time it’s done.

My mother had a clever way of keeping Uncle from her estate. She made me and my sibling’s co-signers on all her stuff. When she died there was very little estate to settle as the cash was already in our name. We sold her house and as the proceeds were under the estate tax limits we were good to go.

My parents worked very hard and long for their estate and wanted to pass it on to their children unencumbered. I imagine most others feel the same way; the government already got their cut.

Raker, the working poor won't get a 'bone' they will get a pink slip.

If no one is actually making the minimum wage, then what's the resistence to raising it, warboy?

wages all up the ladder go up, especially union wages,

Bingo spook. And that is bad how?

LaMano-

There is a fundamental difference there...

The income tax cuts give living people their money back.

The estate tax cuts take dead people's money.

Dead people can't spend their own tax breaks.

My sister who lives in the Midwest told me recently that some idled GM workers actually get paid for showing up at the plant and doing nothing for their shift. Where can I get a job like that?
Was GM on crack when they agreed to that?
No wonder they are sinking.

Someone said on the radio yesterday, what would you rather have for a strong business in America, GM or Exxon? Answer is easy, a dozen Exxon’s, they are contributing to the economy is an enormous way on multiple levels. Their success trickles down to every part of the economy.

And before you libs start crying about gas prices, remember Exxon and the others are paying $80/bbl for that oil, not charging $80/bbl.

If no one is actually making the minimum wage, then what's the resistence to raising it, warboy?, writes Ash

Because the minimum wage will be raised nearly 40% which is above what they are making.

Out of curiosity, have you EVER employed anyone in business and had to cut them a paycheck; contribute to FICA, FUTA, SUTA, take withholdings, live off the bottom line?

GF: That dead people’s money belongs to their descendents, not the government.

Instead, for goodness sake, throw the working poor a bone, will ya.

Raker, in one sentence you've described better than I ever could how Liberals really view the poor. But then, I guess a bone is better than Martin Sheen spending the night on a sewer grate to show his support for the homeless.

What the libs don't get or refuse to concede is that if taxes or wages or other costs are artificially forced upward, the business will do whatever it takes to maintain profitability, by raising prices, not hiring or giving raises, or by not expanding the business.

Porter, it's the difference between thinking in static terms (which Liberals tend to do) and thinking in dynamic terms (which Conservatives tend to do), or fantasy-land vs. reality.

LaMano,
As it was proposed by TR -- known to have been a dangerous radical socialist -- the estate tax was specifically designed to prevent large fortunes being handed down indefinately, thus creating a financial oligarchy in the U.S.
That's right -- a redistributionist plot.
And who says there can be no compromise? I'd be glad to let fortunes of, say, $5 million slide at 15 percent and tax anything over that at 100 percent.

LaMano,
As it was proposed by TR -- known to have been a dangerous radical socialist -- the estate tax was specifically designed to prevent large fortunes being handed down indefinately, thus creating a financial oligarchy in the U.S.
That's right -- a redistributionist plot.
And who says there can be no compromise? I'd be glad to let fortunes of, say, $5 million slide at 15 percent and tax anything over that at 100 percent.

Lets see if I got this now.

Raising the minimum wage. Bad. Ruinous. Not right. Will raise the price of everything because it will "force" a raise for everyone else. Not really needed because "no one makes minimum anyhoo".
Stores will close, business' will fold. It's the bottom line baby. Look out for "trickle up" (as it pertains to wages).

Estate tax. Bad. Ruinous. Not right. Those that are wealthy enough to leave an estate, worked for that. Work and the prosperity it gained should be passed on for generation after generation. The effect this will have is "trickle down". The wealthy will spend, and in turn, support business,which will in turn, hire more poor at minumum wage.

Hmmm...sounds fair to me...that's life.

I would hate to see the estate tax repealed. Gawd, Buffy and Tad deserve so much more. Christmas is coming and there is going to be a new HDTV DVD player released. The question we should be asking ourselves is blue ray, or the other format.

We should just allow exemptions for life insurance policies, farms, small businesses, and estates under $10m.

That should be enough to keep those inheritors out of the red.

Salvelinus,

The first estate tax was actually in 1797 to pay for rearming the navy.

Very wealthy people can avoid the estate tax. Those that get hurt are those with businesses. If I have a business with a building and equipment valued TODAY at $6 million that does not mean I am wealthy. It does not mean I am making much money, or, any at all. It does not mean my estate has cash to pay just to keep the business running.

I have personnally seen this tax put families OUT OF BUSINESS!

Bingo spook. And that is bad how?

It's not bad for the union worker, but, IMO, wages should be tied to market forces, productivity or a contract or something besides a vote in Congress.

LaMano-

If the business owner would incorporate the buisiness, then all of the profits from that buisiness transfers to who ever takes over it next.

What do you think of the proposal I posted?

Raker, your wealth envy is showing. Go get off your butt and get some for yourself. It's just not that hard.

God Bless America.

I guess what raker and others still don't get about peoples money or other tangibles, it is neither your business nor the government’s to decide what we chose or not choose to do with it

It is not your place or the governments to decide for me what charity or noble cause to support. If I choose to give it all away or sleep in my bed with it, it is not your business.

It is not the governments place to legislate charity. If that is what happens, then it is a tax.

Georgia, why 10 million, why not 9 or 11? You are making a value decision for everyone else based on your own values. Same for minimum wage arguments, raising it won't help anyone. Wages in this economy will take care of themselves as others have pointed out.

Life insurance is already exempt based on my experiences.

America has the greatest economic system every devised, it is self correcting. Only when is it mucked with,does it turn on us like a serpent?

Posted by: Warriornation

In the old days this would be hammered out and both sides could get a victory. Not today, it's all 100% hate Bush from the left so nothing gets done.

How can this be just "today" when the majority of congress is republican? and congress can pass whatever they want. How is this the democrats fault?

can you explain?

If the business owner would incorporate the buisiness, then all of the profits from that buisiness transfers to who ever takes over it next.

WRONG!!!!

Gawd the uninformed are killing me.

Do you suggest Sub-S or C corp????

Incorporation does nothing. If I have all the STOCK in my little CORPORATION then the STOCK is part of the ESTATE.

Try again?

Don't bother ..... DEATH should NOT BE a TAXABLE EVENT.

Buying a car, furniture, obtaing income, perhaps, but DYING; NO WAY.

Porter,

How refreshing to have someone that makes economic sense. So many believe that government or others are entitled to people's hard earned money is just irrational.

Most people comprehend that it is not appropriate to go and 'borrow' someone's car or go into their house and eat their food or use their personal possessions. Why is it okay, then, to justify confiscating their earnings? Their estate?

Heaven forbid trying to explain who is more effective at utilitzing captial, individuals or government.

We should just allow exemptions for life insurance policies, farms, small businesses, and estates under $10m.

That should be enough to keep those inheritors out of the red.

That proposal.

When you raise the minimum wage, ALL goods and services cost more to create. The price of everything goes up. That increased price is across the board... rich people and minimum wage earners pay for that increase equally. The market will reach basically the same parity it currently has where a minimum wage income will buy the same amount it can buy now. The numbers are higher, but they're higher on both income and outgo, and there is no net benefit to the minimum wage earner.

The other consequence of raising the minimum wage, though is that businesses will not be able to hire as many employees. Their ability to hire people is based on the money they have available from their income after taxes are paid, continuing costs of business are paid (you sell something, you have to buy or create more in order to sell during the next week/month/whatever). If each employee now costs significatnly more, the business is going to be able to significantly fewer people. An awful lot of people will be out of work that previously had been (or would soon have been) able to be employed.

We should just allow exemptions for life insurance policies, farms, small businesses, and estates under $10m.

First, the money has ALREADY BEEN TAXED. It should not be taxed AGAIN.

Second, the very wealthy can avoid this tax through trusts and other strategies. So, why have a tax that the very wealthy can avoid? Just look at Bill Gates. He would be the biggest fish to fry with the estate tax. Why should he NOT be able to establish a foundation, in perpetuity, to help fight aids and provide vaccinations to people around the world?

Explain the logic behind making DEATH a taxable event. Virtually all other taxes are related to commerce, earnings, owning property, etc. Why DEATH?

LNC, based on your reasoning, this should apply to the price of oil and the effect on our economy. The price of oil has an effect on everything right? If the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up proportionally. Except wages. Wages stagnante. So like it or not because the prices go up. Wages stay the same, the poor get poorer. Middle income drizzles away. Not quickly enough to notice right away, trickles, drizzles, what ever you want to call it. It is happening right now before our eyes. So heres the trade off, we can raise the minimum wage just to catch up, and starting right now, make REAL changes away from an oil based economy. Controlling the price of oil will help offset nesessary wage increases. I refuse to discuss the estate tax in junction with the minimum wage. The issues are two differennt entities and should be dicussed as such.

The Death Tax (Estate Tax) has been a sore spot in my family. Its ridiculous.

All that money my grandparents made was ALREADY TAXED!!!!!!!! And for my parents and myself to have to pay more taxes to receive it as a gift just pi$$es me off.

LOL

Raker,

It's really rather simple. Raising the minimum wage will cause people to LOSE JOBS or not be able to land them. That is a very hard economic reality.

Those that will lose their job and face unemployment are those at the lowest levels of income who can least afford it. They are also those that are least likely to be heard from.

If you do not believe that economic fact, then, it makes no sense to further the discussion.

Ash said this about Monitoring sex offenders:
I think we ought to keep the government out of our private lives and let the market deal with this issue.

Posted by: Ash at July 28, 2006 10:09 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I guess it's okay to have government leave us alone unless it's prying money out of the pockets of those who earned it, and want to give it to their heirs.

Wow... SOOO... LIBS...which is it... government interfere in your life in many ways (some you don't like) or should government stay out of our lives (even if it means them ignoring things you want such as gay marriage).

Think of it this way:

The government taxes transferrance of property and capital.

Passing an estate is a transferrance of capital and property.

As for "before taxes". Except for FICA, very, very little would be taken out in federal or state withholding. Even FICA withholding would be minimal.

I think at that income level one would likely get an earned income credit - free money from Uncle Sugar.

It makes sure that people actually have to earn their wealth instead of running around on you dead father's dime.

Umm, did the dead father earn it? Or may his father? Is it unreasonable to think that when you die, you can pass on what you worked so hard to acquire on to your offspring? Are you willing to sign over whatever you own to the tax man should you die? Or do you think "only the rich" deserve that fate?

Tell me, where would the defecit go if this tax were repealed?

Probably still downward as it has been over the last couple years as long as the economy keeps booming. The Estate Tax was never envisioned to have any impact on the Federal Budget othet than to take the money away from those that earned it and give it to those that had not - resdistribution of the wealth - a Socialist idea that is one of the key ideas behind Communism.

I know, I know, libs will just say, "so what?" to that last point. They really want the USSA

Republicans have missed another opportunity to get people off of welfare.

Any increase in the minimum wage should also cut welfare payments and require welfare recipients to get out on the streets to earn that new minimum wage! There are help wanted and job hiring signs everywhere. Raise the minimum wage and put the those on welfare in those jobs!

As an alternative and to encourage people on welfare to "learn" how to work, continue to pay them their welfare but allow businesses to hire them for the difference between the welfare payments and the new minimum wage, with the understanding that those businesses will use the money saved to train and educate them for better jobs so they can get off welfare permanently.

AAR

Rev,
Excellent points. As for GF why do you continue to skirt the issue of double taxation?! The death Tax is just that, what exactly is your issue with those who have worked hard, saved hard and want to leave something behind for their families. Are you upset because you don't have an inheritance in the future? I'll bet if you did you gladly hand it over to the gov't Hmmm? How about your children? When you see 35% of your paycheck gone before you ever see it, do you really want uncle sam to tap it again before it reaches your heirs..come on tell the truth!

Rev,
Excellent points. As for GF why do you continue to skirt the issue of double taxation?! The death Tax is just that, what exactly is your issue with those who have worked hard, saved hard and want to leave something behind for their families. Are you upset because you don't have an inheritance in the future? I'll bet if you did you gladly hand it over to the gov't Hmmm? How about your children? When you see 35% of your paycheck gone before you ever see it, do you really want uncle sam to tap it again before it reaches your heirs..come on tell the truth!

I will have an inheritance in the future, my family is upper crust... I am not planning on needing it to survive though.

Also, I plan on raising my children (when my time to raise children comes) to be able to provide for themselves without having to rely on me after they leave the house.

As I said, I think that estates under $10mil should be exempted; I believe that even that sum is much... I would be more concerned if my children actually needed my estate to survive. I would only have myself to blame if they needed it that badly.

Lets put all of that money to good use though... how about 20% pay raises for our troops? What better way to support them?

AAR,
I hate that you saw that my post went thru twice, I swear that I followed the instructions! On another point I see your point but as a supervisor, I had a mother and daughter-probably in their 30's and 50's apply for a job. I hired them as they seemed eager to work. Boy, was I wrong! The first day I spent running them out of the "smoke hole" and on day 2 they walked out in the middle of the shift. Mind you this wasn't a terrible job and the wages for our states cost of living were very good. About a week later, they showed up to get their checks, for about 12hrs each and then handed me a document to sign so they could get food stamps!! I wouldn't sign, they of course went back to the welfare office who called me asking why I wouldn't sign. I filled the agency in on the circumstances regarding their departure, she seemed disinterested and I again restated my position that I wouldn't sign. Of course they contacted my coorporate office who instructed me to sign. I just couldn't make myself do it, coorporate did appreciate my position, but under threat they had the document faxed to them and another representative signed. I'm sorry but I don't think raising the minimum wage will change the entitlement mentality, if anything I think we'll hear cries to raise the welfare income to be ya know fair and competitive" IMHO.

GF,
I am pleased to see we agree on quite a bit. I too will have an inheritance, no where near 10mil, but not bad. I won't need it to survive, but my beloved parents wish to do this for their kids. I wasn't sure if you had kids or not, it was just a hypothetical, but wish you all the joys when you do. I have kids and they will probably fare better than I because they are much smarter, and they think so too, being teenagers.As for a pay raise to the troops, hell yeah! I'm on board with that!

The minimum wage should be raised to $17.31 an hour. The 1st $1,000,000 of an estate should be tax free, any amount over that should be taxed at 100%. People should earn their wealth, not have it given to them. Peace

"Those that will lose their job and face unemployment are those at the lowest levels of income who can least afford it."

So are you telling me Lemano, the hamburger flipper making $5.15 and hour will be laid off before a useless shift manager making $12 an hour? I doubt it.

Most of the fat will be cut off at the middle management level. The large business owner will be force to take a little less megaprofit.But neither of those esteemed fellows have the gumption to flip burgers over a hot grill.

Okay Mary as a hypothetical, would you favor a small inheritence tax if it benefited the military troops?

Ash,
I strongly support better wages for our troops, but have not thoroughly investigated how that should be funded. I do not believe in double taxation. Once income has been taxed, I don't think that it should be taxed again just because it is changing hands. Point in fact, for example child support, the parent recieving it is not required to report it as taxable income. But I will certainly give thought as to ways,not that I have any control, to pay our troops better.

Ash writes, Most of the fat will be cut off at the middle management level. The large business owner will be force to take a little less megaprofit.

My gawd you are clueless. If you want to see fat and inefficiencies; look at governments. Small businesses fuel the economic growth, job creation and they run very lean.

I employ around 100 people. I WILL LAY OFF SEVERAL PEOPLE IF THE MINIMUM WAGE EXCEEDS $6/hr. People that have ZERO, or near zero, work experience.

Just as a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged; you would have a much different perspective if you ran a business, employed people and had to deal with the regulations of our governments. Until then you have only opinions ... and ones with no merit.

Think of it this way:
The government taxes transferrance of property and capital.

I don't need to think of a way that it ISN'T. It's not a transfer tax. It is a tax on the market value of the assets (the estate) of a deceased person.

PLUS, IT'S ALREADY BEEN TAXED. It would be like you paying sales tax on your groceries and then paying another tax when your family ate dinner. Ooooh, they're consuming your stuff ... transfer tax.

mary s,

No matter how hard you try, you'll get a double post occasionally. I have one floating around on another thread right now that I'm waiting to show up. In that case, I logged in with TypeKey, but by the time I finished, the system logged me out and I didn't notice until I had "posted" my comment. When comments are entered without being logged into TypeKey, they go into a queue and must be reviewed and released by the moderator. Occasionally that happens rather quickly, but other times it can take hours or days, and I have had some that never appeared.

Keep working at it until you get used to the process and let me know where you are having the problems. I won't guarantee that I can solve all of them, but I'll give it a try. There's still something wrong that needs to be fixed, but until the B4B technical "experts" figure it out, I guess we'll have to muddle through.

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct. I wanted to see how many liberals would come out of the woodwork and reflexively defend the welfare system as they usually do. Raising the minimum wage could and should be tied to some type of welfare reform; although, it wouldn't be as simple as I stated. The same thing is true of immigration or guest worker reform. We have work to do and yet we must bring in illegal or guest workers to do it. I say, put everyone on welfare to work who can work, and have them checked periodically by groups whose intent is to make them work, not figure out how to keep them on welfare. If we are going to raise the minimum wage or allow in guest workers, reform welfare at the same time.

It's not that there aren't jobs and work to do, it's that people won't do them because it's so much easier to get welfare, subsidies, entitlements, food stamps, daycare, and whatever else the liberals have created for the government to hand out to those who are too lazy to work. Your example is probably the rule rather than the exception. I don't know how many times I have heard very similar stories from various stores. Stores hire people to do the work and the people show up late, or as you said, they work for a few days and quit. In many cases, they work just long enough to meet the requirements to draw more welfare, food stamps, or whatever else the government has that they can abuse.

Liberals and their easy welfare system have destroyed America's work ethic. Welfare used to be a stigma that a person accepted as the last resort. Liberals have changed that into a profession and career unto itself! And when conservatives try to change it, liberals drag out some legitimate case or two and make the American people believe that is the rule, when it is in fact the exception. Those who want to change the system are labeled as uncaring, insensitive, heartless, and whatever terms the liberals choose to use at that moment.

I've personally seen what the quota system does too. I was required to hire people to meet racial or sexual quotas when there were far more qualified people available. And, rather than search the nation for really qualified women or minorities -- and there are many of them out there -- we were told to hire the ones on the local list. And to make it worse, they were later promoted, to meet more quotas, when most couldn't do the work they were hired to do and some should have been fired. That made them look bad, and others had to be hired at more cost to do the work they couldn't.

If a woman or family is already on welfare, I would not pay extra for each subsequent child they have "to increase their welfare income." If their relatives can't subsidize or take care of the additional children, I would put them in a foster home and pay those individuals to take care of them. They could have their child or children back when the were able to take care of them without more welfare. Yes, that would be called heartless, but welfare careerism must be stopped some way.

It's time Conservatives get better organized, start working together and demand more changes to the welfare system, the broken educational system, the legal system, and every thing else that liberals have touched and fouled up. If that means being called uncaring and heartless, so be it, but make those work who can work, even if they have to pick up paper along the sides of the road or wave at passing motorists to earn their welfare check.

Until Conservative get themselves better organized and work harder for change, it will be more of the easy and destructive lifestyle of liberalism. Right now, we need more strong leadership and coordinators to unite and guide conservatives and Republicans.

If you don't already listen to Rush Limbaugh, I would encourage you to do so along with other conservative talk shows. Rush and others have discussed in depth the fallacies of increasing the minimum wage -- something liberals cannot comprehend.

The minimum wage issue is just more liberal "brain candy"!

AAR

Ash...why do you support double taxation?

Simple question..are you capable of answering it?

I don't need to think of a way that it ISN'T. It's not a transfer tax. It is a tax on the market value of the assets (the estate) of a deceased person.
LaMano

Does the estate have a new owner after the person died?

Would it be safe to assume that ownership of the estate "transfers" after death?

Does the estate tax apply when a person gives their estate (or part of their estate) to charity? (the answer is "no" by the way)

Well, that knocks out your first premise.

On to your second paragraph. Your analogy is totally off. A better analogy would be this:

You earn money, and it is covered under the income tax. Your relative needs $10,000 for surgery. You transfer the dough. That transfer is taxed.

There is another instance of "double taxation." Where's your outrage. Where is your outrage about sales taxes, property taxes, and gift taxes?

Well, Paris Hilton appreciates your support. She loves doing nothing, and now she can keep on doing just that.

GF,

You are way over your head. You are mixing a will and an estate. What happens with the estate is determined by the will. Sometimes probate is involved, sometimes it is intestate.

Then you try to throw in a completely unrelated tax, the Gift Tax. That tax is only on people that are ALIVE. That tax is VOLUNTARY, people do not have to give a gift to anyone. Nobody has yet figured out how to NOT DIE. Therefore, the Death Tax is mandatory.

Estates can actually exist for some period of time.

But, I do not have the time nor the interest in teaching you; buy a book.

Then you bring up other taxes. Most of them are too high also, but, why do you try to change the subject. Don't bother answering, I already know.

Sounds like you are envious of dear Paris. You will be much happier in life if you focus on the blessings YOU HAVE, rather than what you don't have, or, what others have.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the fundamental precepts upon which the American experiment is based the idea that one's standing in society should be based on personal merit rather than bloodline? Isn't the fact that European society was based on one or another form of hereditary aristocracy an important grievance that underpinned the development of our own form of government? Addressing that ideal is what the inheritance/death tax is all about. So if you wish to avoid a hereditary aristocracy, yet are also against the inheritance/death tax, what do you suggest?

IMHO, one's ability to succeed should be based much more on one's own ability, not who your daddy was. IMHO, the leveler the playing field the better capitalism works.

But I guess all that is off-topic. The topic is minimum wage. Unfortunately, I don't have much of an opinion on that. But I do have a question for LaMano just because I'm curious: if you will lay off several people if the minimum wage is raised, who is going to take up the slack? And why couldn't they take up the slack in the first place?

Ash...why do you support double taxation?

I don't necessarily support it. But we already have it don't we? I pay tax on my car when I buy it and every year I pay tax on it again in the form of property taxes. So inheritance tax is hardly a new concept.

Why do you support the children of wealthy parents receiving something for nothing? Which is basically what inheritance is. It fosters dependency and can eventually produce a generation that can't do anything 'cept spend Papa's money.

Darn, sorry rico. Looks like I reiterated one of the points you made. And you made it a lot clearer.

LaMano-

I have already acknowledged the fact that I will recieve an inheritance and it will probably be taxed... then again, I am planning on not needing that inheritance to survive.

When I have kids and it comes time to leave my estate, I will probably leave a large share of it to my favorite charities: if they need my estate to survive, then I will have failed as a parent.

LaMano-

I have already acknowledged the fact that I will recieve an inheritance and it will probably be taxed... then again, I am planning on not needing that inheritance to survive.

When I have kids and it comes time to leave my estate, I will probably leave a large share of it to my favorite charities: if they need my estate to survive, then I will have failed as a parent.

Rico,

I can't believe you wrote this, IMHO, the leveler the playing field the better capitalism works.

And just who LEVELS the playing field? How do they LEVEL it? Who determines what LEVEL is?

Try reading a good book; any by Milton Friedman would be good. Try Capitalism and Freedom.

Our founders hated royalty. That means bloodlines. Inheritance actually helps EVERYONE pass on wealth to their families.

As an example, Bill Gates is not royalty but created incredible wealth. No one should distribute his wealth FOR HIM. He will do a much better job utilizing his capital than government ever would.

As for the layoffs, everyone else has to cover for those that are gone. The service may decline some. The ones laid off are overhead.

Let's try an example. Say Joe assists a skilled worker, Mark, and Mark produces ADDITIONAL revenue of $6/hr. when Joe assists him. If Joe is paid $6/hr then you are at break even. (Actually, you are losing because there are payroll costs that are additional. Let's ignore those to make it easier.) If I am FORCED to pay Joe $7/hr then I lose money while Joe is working.

Do enough of that and you are out of business.

When I have kids and it comes time to leave my estate, I will probably leave a large share of it to my favorite charities: if they need my estate to survive, then I will have failed as a parent.

GREAT. That is YOUR opinion; that is what YOU choose to do.

Why is it that you will not ALLOW others to do with THEIR HARD EARNED INCOME as they wish?

What if you have a child with severe handicaps. You will not live forever. You would probably need a small fortune to ensure your child was adequately cared for for the rest of his/her life. But, the Feds will tax your estate. Half of it could be gone ...... just because.

Just let people keep their money and do with it as they wish. The Feds do not need any more money not do they need to be in our lives any more.

Exactly what do you do with the big government lie called social security. Anyone under 40 years of age will find the federal cupboards are bare when it is their turn. However, their paychecks are being tapped for this future promise. Maybe you want to donate to charity, but, there will be hell to pay when the promises come due in the next few decades. I recommend keeping some for the family.

Mary s,

Thinking a little more about that double post...

I am guessing you got the usual blue error screen when you hit "post". When you then hit "preview" to check to see if your comment was in B4B-limbo-land, did you happen to get a message saying that the page had "expired" and which also told you to hit "refresh"? If so, I am guessing that "refresh" actually refreshed your last "post".

When you get either the "page expired, refresh screen" or the "retry screen" immediately after "posting", either of those will likely result in a duplicate post. In that case, go back another screen on your browser or start over and re-enter the thread from the beginning. That's one reason you need to make a copy of the comments you "posted" -- just in case you find out that they did not post and you need to re-enter them.

Another thing, if the blue/black error screen happens immediately/instantly after you hit "post", you will likely find that your post did not take. If, on the other hand, it takes a few to several seconds after hitting "post" for the error screen to appear, you will likely find when you "preview" it, your comments did post and are just waiting there in B4B-limbo-land!

Hopefully this didn't add too much confusion.

Note: Earlier, I posted a reply to your last comment -- just so you know to check back through the comments and don't think this was my only one.

AAR

raker...

You are right that higher gas prices mean higher costs for just about everything.

However, your conclusion that a minimum wage hike would help with the problem is wrong. Both things have the same detrimental effect. Having one or the other happen causes problems. Having both would magnify those problems, not alleviate them.

We can't control the cost of oil (and unfortunately, all avenues of alleviating that problem are regularly blocked... drilling more in and offshore of the US, building more refineries, building nuclear power plants and even wind farms). It costs the US oil companies what it does, and in order to stay in business, they in turn have to raise the price they charge. The problem will not go away until we are able to deal with the root cause (our need for oil, and our current dependence on foreign oil because, for various reasons, we are not allowed to develop those things which would provide the solution).

But to add to that economic problem a raise in minimum wages would greatly exacerbate the problem.

Just to clarify,

The estate tax does not tax the dead. After all, they're dead, they can't be taxed by the government. (You might be 'taxed' at the pearly gates, but not by Uncle Sam.)

The tax is on those who inherit the estate. They are very much alive, and the estate is very much income to them. It is not double taxation, since the person receiving the estate has not paid any taxes on that estate.

Incidentally, you do know the purpose of the estate tax, right? Its too encourage the wealthy elderly to distribute their estate BEFORE they die, thus avoiding the estate tax and in the process, increasing the flow of money through our economy. Money tied up in an estate is essentially stagnant, while money flowing through more active investments is dynamic and leads to an improved economy.

AAR,
regarding the blue screen, that's exactly what happened. When I hit refresh I received the "error" messgae and I did in fact hit "Ok" to resend the data. You're pretty good at this stuff. I agree that welfare reform has been tabled by the Republicans and it does require a serious overhaul, it's become generational. It really amazes me how upset some are that some will receive inheritances, but do not seem upset that their are families who on on the third genertion of being on the dole. As for Rush, my dad and brothers to me to see him liveon his "Rush to Excellence tour" I have been hooked ever since!! And now with podcast and 24/7 I rarely miss a show. I am an EIB Institute student!!! Very nice having these exchanges of info and ideas with you!! And I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me. You and Retired Spook must have the patience of the Saints!!! Mary

AAR,
regarding the blue screen, that's exactly what happened. When I hit refresh I received the "error" messgae and I did in fact hit "Ok" to resend the data. You're pretty good at this stuff. I agree that welfare reform has been tabled by the Republicans and it does require a serious overhaul, it's become generational. It really amazes me how upset some are that some will receive inheritances, but do not seem upset that their are families who on on the third genertion of being on the dole. As for Rush, my dad and brothers to me to see him liveon his "Rush to Excellence tour" I have been hooked ever since!! And now with podcast and 24/7 I rarely miss a show. I am an EIB Institute student!!! Very nice having these exchanges of info and ideas with you!! And I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me. You and Retired Spook must have the patience of the Saints!!! Mary

AAR,
regarding the blue screen, that's exactly what happened. When I hit refresh I received the "error" messgae and I did in fact hit "Ok" to resend the data. You're pretty good at this stuff. I agree that welfare reform has been tabled by the Republicans and it does require a serious overhaul, it's become generational. It really amazes me how upset some are that some will receive inheritances, but do not seem upset that their are families who on on the third genertion of being on the dole. As for Rush, my dad and brothers to me to see him liveon his "Rush to Excellence tour" I have been hooked ever since!! And now with podcast and 24/7 I rarely miss a show. I am an EIB Institute student!!! Very nice having these exchanges of info and ideas with you!! And I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me. You and Retired Spook must have the patience of the Saints!!! Mary

I hate that BLUE SCREEN!!!!!

LaMano:

What many here fail to understand are the basics that you are trying to convey about how real businesses are run. Any simple business course will quickly convey the ideas but most apparently never took them, forgot what they learned, or have created some Utopian Socialist ideas out of smoke and mirrors.

First of all, the backbone of the American economy is profit-making business and much of that is provided by small companies, like yours. I used to have an S-corp consulting business. All I could do to ensure I made a profit was either cut my costs (what you're talking about with layoffs) or raise prices.

To those here who seem to be lacking a clue, raising prices will inevitably decrease your profits and could wipe them out. Why? All your competitors have to do is keep theirs the same while you raise yours, and you will hemorrhage customers. What will they do to compensate for increased mandates for minimum wage? Lay people off. Their costs are managed and their prices are now lower than yours if you chose to raise prices instead. Time to go buy a "how-to" book on bankruptcy.

A business has one reason to exist - make a profit. If it does not, it will fail to exist. Since these businesses provide most of the jobs in this country, it seems unwise to make in increasingly difficult for them to operate and make a profit.

They are already suffering mightily under oppressive government controls and rules, most of which are unneeded. This is just one more cross to bear. Unfortunately, the actual cross-bearer here will by the young, entry-level employee who gets the pink slip.

To those here who seem to be lacking a clue, raising prices will inevitably decrease your profits and could wipe them out. Why? All your competitors have to do is keep theirs the same while you raise yours, and you will hemorrhage customers. What will they do to compensate for increased mandates for minimum wage? Lay people off. Their costs are managed and their prices are now lower than yours if you chose to raise prices instead. Time to go buy a "how-to" book on bankruptcy.
-The Good (?) Reverend

Tell that to Exxon Mobile. It depends on what good they are selling and whether that good is easily replacable.

GF Exxon Mobil does not control the pricing of oil.

Good lord son, you must be 23 years old or something. Oil is a speculative commodity. Did they teach you anything in school?

The price of oil is determined by the markets and speculators, NOT by the oil companies.

It's really hard to have conversations with you young turks if you don't bother to understand or learn what the situations are.

It's also why so many of you young guns eventually outgrow your liberalism when you get older, wiser and smarter...because then you have absorbed a few facts along the way. Until then...sigh.

Steve: I propose that we tax 100 % of your income at 100 % cause I think that is fair.

See how crazy it sounds, thats what you sound like.

Tell that to Exxon Mobile.

What Warriornation said, only in bold-face and all caps. Get a clue, son.

Oh, and if you don't like the price of gas, here's a thought...don't buy it. Get a bicycle. Walk. That'll show 'em, right? Or maybe you could find a way to harness the gas coming out of Mad Al Gore's pie hole and Howlin' Howie's maw. That IS a source of unlimited capacity.

I wish I could find the exact numbers on the gas prices, but in part the actual amoun