Unemployment rate hits 5-month high

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 4 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Saturday, August 5, 2006 3:30 AM

Quote:
I doubt the 50,000 or so families affected each year by estate taxes can provide more political clout that the two million plus folks who'd profit from the increase in the minimum wage.

$ 1 = 1 vote

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I guess the Republicans were also trying to appease a portion of their voting base. Crafty Republicans.

That's the thing, though. Why be crafty? They control Congress and the White House.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Or why not couple the two? The Democrats get the minimum wage increase they've been talking about for the past several years, and the Republicans get the reduction in the estate tax that they've been pushing for the past few years. Looks like a win-win to me. The only real losers are the acountants who get rich figuring how to help their clients avoid estate taxes. I doubt the 50,000 or so families affected each year by estate taxes can provide more political clout that the two million plus folks who'd profit from the increase in the minimum wage. Why not let everyone make a few points?

Actually the real losers are the next generation who have to shoulder the debt incurred by cutting more taxes while increasing spending. And more and more burden gets shifted onto the shrinking middle class. As far as the political clout of the families affected, how much money do you think they've donated to politicians versus those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase? From what we've seen with the Republican leadership (ah, the good old K Street project) it's all about the pay-to-play. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

At least the Republicans finally gave up on the family farm angle for repealing the estate tax. Seems they couldn't really find any that would be affected.

* edited to add: Although I guess I can see a relationship between the two proposals. Democrats clearly hate the idea of giving the super-rich-dead a tax break. Republicans clearly hate the idea of giving those who earn minimum wage an increase in pay.

* edited one more time to add: Ooh. I like that. Here's the slogan the Republicans should use, "You better let us give tax breaks to the dead or we won't give pay raises to the living."

RUE

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:00 AM

I just did a back of the envelope calculation on Slick's stoopit flip little comment about relative wealth and influence.

The relaively few wealthy families will gain 10,000% more excess money from the tax break than the minimum wage families will gain from the raise.

Yeah, that sounds like a fair trade to me. And it'll sure go along way to even-out political influence.

Yes, once again Slick has shown his greasy side.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I just did a back of the envelope calculation on Slicks' stoopit flip little comment about relative wealth and influence.

The relaively few wealthy families will gain 10,000% more excess money from the tax break than the minimum wage families will gain from the raise.

Yeah, that sounds like a fair trade to me.

Yikes. And the wealthy families will be doing nothing to get that excess money while those who earn minimum wage will actually be working for that pay.

RUE

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:15 AM

http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.com/2006/06/income-distribution-
in-us.html

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

-- Median US family income (at the 50 yard line) is $40,000 a stack of $100 bills 1.6inches high
-- The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high
-- At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high
-- The curve reaches $1 million, a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills, one foot from the goal line
-- At the goal-line the stack is ~30 miles high on this scale!

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

And the people who annually make $5M US or more? I can see they really NEEEED that tax break SOOOOooo badly. They're doing just awful compared to everyone else.

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Actually the real losers are the next generation who have to shoulder the debt incurred by cutting more taxes while increasing spending. And more and more burden gets shifted onto the shrinking middle class. As far as the political clout of the families affected, how much money do you think they've donated to politicians versus those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase?

I gotta look at the particulars in the legislation, but based on the news stuff I've seen, this is a pretty small reduction in overall estate taxes. Probably a few billion a year. I suspect the additional tax revenue from the increased wages and spending would pretty much offset it, plus improving life for the folks who are having their income increased by 40%. Increasing spending is a problem, but it doesn't really have anything to do with this particular piece of legislation(I think. Need to go to Thomas and see the language in the bill).

As to political contributions and clout, I think there are plenty of rich liberals as well as conservitives. I suspect that they balance out. If I were suspicious, I'd wonder if the Dems didn't fear that a Republican-sponsored increase in the Minimum wage would swing a few votes to the Right.

But I do really think that it would have been a worthwhile swap for both sides, and the people in general. Like I said, I need to look over the legislation more and run the numbers, but based on media reports, it seems fair.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Yikes. And the wealthy families will be doing nothing to get that excess money while those who earn minimum wage will actually be working for that pay.

Why do I get the feeling that this is all about punishing rich people for being rich? Why do I think that we passed up an opportunity to make a compromise that would let millions of people improve their lives, afford health insurance, feed their kids good food, buy homes, etc., just because some folks can't stand the idea of rich people's families inheriting money?

The tax money estates pay isn't going to help those folks working for minimum wage. It'll go to build a porkbarrel project for some congressperson of either party. Increasing the minimum wage goes right into the wage-earners pocket. No middleman. No trickle-down. 100 cents on the dollar. Money they'll spend to boost the economy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Saturday, August 5, 2006 4:39 AM

Slick,

It's not about punishing the rich. It's about protecting the next generations from Bush's economic follies.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Why do I get the feeling that this is all about punishing rich people for being rich? Why do I think that we passed up an opportunity to make a compromise that would let millions of people improve their lives, afford health insurance, feed their kids good food, buy homes, etc., just because some folks can't stand the idea of rich people's families inheriting money?

The tax money estates pay isn't going to help those folks working for minimum wage. It'll go to build a porkbarrel project for some congressperson of either party. Increasing the minimum wage goes right into the wage-earners pocket. No middleman. No trickle-down. 100 cents on the dollar. Money they'll spend to boost the economy.

You'll get no argument from me that passing the minimum wage increase would be a good thing. So pass it by itself. That Republicans will not put the minimum wage increase to an up and down vote tells you something about their priorities. It's almost as if the thought of paying workers more per hour is abhorrent to them.

I'll turn it around a bit. Why do we have to reward the rich. Why make things easier on them?

I thought the American dream was you work hard, play by the rules and get ahead. Instead we continue to stack the deck so that the best decision you can make to ensure a successful future is to choose to be born rich.

*eta: Work hard. Take care of your family's needs. Make scads of money. Become filthy rich. All okay things in my book. An inherited aristocracy, however, is not.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 5, 2006 6:18 AM

Quote:
Why do I think that we passed up an opportunity to make a compromise that would let millions of people improve their lives, afford health insurance, feed their kids good food, buy homes, etc.,

OMG Geezer, do you REALLY THINK $7.20 an hour is going to allow anyone to afford health insurance, buy a home, and improve their lives? Why not just say "Let them eat cake"?? Assuming a full time job, $7.20/ hr grosses $17,000/ year before taxes. Try supporting a family on THAT for a while. 'Fraid you'll have to dump the boat, motorcycles, Honda racing cars and whiskey, tho.

Quote:
The tax money estates pay isn't going to help those folks working for minimum wage.

Why not? You're always blathering about how "the system works". Have you suddenly lost your faith? That measly $6 billion loss could fund something like... oh, I dunno- Head Start which right now is funded at about $7 billion. Or WIC which is funded at about $6 billion. Amazing what a few crumbs can do, eh Geezer?

And now, moving past your motivations- which are measly at best- let's examine your math.

Quote:
I don't see the problem with bundling them as a tit-for-tat deal benefiting both sides, as mentioned above. I'm not sure what you mean stating "...raising the minimum wage doesn't replace that revenue stream and it doesn't directly transfer benefit to minimum-wage workers.

Setting aide that the two deals are non-equivalent, they aren't even close in sheer raw dollars. The inheritance tax means a loss of revenue and s shift of moneys to the tune of about $6 billion a year, every year. The increase in minimum wage would have a MAXIMUM impact of about $2.7 billion. If I were bargaining, you'd have to offer me something like two or three times what "your" side is getting before I'd even consider it, because tax money going to the wealthy has a double whammy on both Federal income and aggregate demand.

But, I understand Geezer that crumbs are all the poor and middle class should expect, and be damn grateful for them. Can you say "miserable little turd of a human being"? Sure you can!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE