Unemployment rate hits 5-month high

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 6 of 11

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

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If I thought that the Minimum wage could make it through as a stand-alone, I'd say do it. I don't think that will happen. The Dems must not either, or I suppose they'd propose it. I don't care one way or the other about the Estate tax. It'll never impact me. It just seemed there was a chance to make a deal to get a Minimim tax increased passed, and the Dems wouldn't compromise enough to get what they say they've wanted for years.

Do a google search for: minimum wage kennedy #### (where #### is any year from 1998 on). You'll see that Senator Kennedy has been trying to get a minimum wage increase for quite a long time using a number of different strategies. There has been an attempt at compromise. Every year there is an attempt to raise the minimum wage. And every year but one the estate tax burden has been lowered.

What was proposed by the Republicans was about as good a compromise as if Mexico told us, "We'll do something about our citizens migrating to your country if you drastically cut your border patrol budget." Would you complain that our government wasn't willing to compromise if it didn't take that deal?

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And yet, if you look at my last post, you'll see that there has been no problem reducing the estate tax burden in eight of the last nine years.

But according to that logic, this year's bill to reduce estate tax should have passed as well. Were the people who voted it down opposed to the Minimum Tax provisions instead? I don't think that was their resoning.

Quote:
You're neglecting the part where you're aided in becoming successful by infrastructure (built or subsidized by taxpayer dollars), an educated workforce (mostly educated by taxpayer dollars), a safe and secure arena to operate in (protected through the spending of taxpayer dollars), incentives and loopholes (where the rest of the taxpayers pick up the slack), etc. How much more successful are you because of those investments made by taxpayers? Hard to say. Thirty percent? Maybe. Maybe more.

But everybody gets the advantages of infrastructure, etc. Does this mean that to be fair, everybody should pay estate tax? That'd be a hard sell. And don't forget that the folks who earn more money pay more taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers (taxable income over about $300,000.00) already pay 34% of all income taxes ($256 billion in 2003).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If I thought that the Minimum wage could make it through as a stand-alone, I'd say do it. I don't think that will happen. The Dems must not either, or I suppose they'd propose it. I don't care one way or the other about the Estate tax. It'll never impact me. It just seemed there was a chance to make a deal to get a Minimim tax increased passed, and the Dems wouldn't compromise enough to get what they say they've wanted for years.

Do a google search for: minimum wage kennedy #### (where #### is any year from 1998 on). You'll see that Senator Kennedy has been trying to get a minimum wage increase for quite a long time using a number of different strategies. There has been an attempt at compromise. Every year there is an attempt to raise the minimum wage. And every year but one the estate tax burden has been lowered.

What was proposed by the Republicans was about as good a compromise as if Mexico told us, "We'll do something about our citizens migrating to your country if you drastically cut your border patrol budget." Would you complain that our government wasn't willing to compromise if it didn't take that deal?

So, Okay. We know the Minimum Wage bills don't make it through alone. The Estate tax bills do. There was a chance to finally, after 10 years, get the Minimum wage bill through on the coattails of an estate tax reduction that's probably going to happen pretty soon anyway. It didn't pass. The rich will probably get their tax cut any way in a while, based on the pattern of reductions you describe. The poor get nothing. This doesn't seem like a win for the poor. It could have been.

I don't particularly care if the rich pay estate tax or not. I do care about an increase in the Minimum wage. I think the Dems blew their best chance to get it passed for several years. That's my gripe.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, August 5, 2006 10:23 PM

GEEZER,

completely ignoring the other poison pill the Republicans snuck into the bill, which as I understand it would have mandated the 7 states with a minimum wage for service jobs to accept the federal minimum instead, effectively reducing the income of servers in those 7 states by about 400 dollars a month or more, for those working full time.

So uh...fuck them and their lame pretense at raising the minimum wage.

SOUPCATCHER

Saturday, August 5, 2006 10:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But according to that logic, this year's bill to reduce estate tax should have passed as well. Were the people who voted it down opposed to the Minimum Tax provisions instead? I don't think that was their resoning.

Because it was a massive roll-back of the estate tax. The Republicans were going for the whole enchilada.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But everybody gets the advantages of infrastructure, etc. Does this mean that to be fair, everybody should pay estate tax? That'd be a hard sell. And don't forget that the folks who earn more money pay more taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers (taxable income over about $300,000.00) already pay 34% of all income taxes ($256 billion in 2003).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Everybody gets the advantages and some get more out of it than others. If you have 5 employees you benefit from their education. If you have 10000 employess your benefit is substantially greater. If you operate in one city you benefit from that infrastructure. If you operate nationwide you benefit from substantially more infrastructure. And on and on. The logic is that those who benefit the most from taxpayer assistance should pay the most for that benefit. It's dues. If you just get the use of the washroom you pay one set of dues. If you get the use of the whole country club you pay another set of dues.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So, Okay. We know the Minimum Wage bills don't make it through alone. The Estate tax bills do. There was a chance to finally, after 10 years, get the Minimum wage bill through on the coattails of an estate tax reduction that's probably going to happen pretty soon anyway. It didn't pass. The rich will probably get their tax cut any way in a while, based on the pattern of reductions you describe. The poor get nothing. This doesn't seem like a win for the poor. It could have been.

I don't particularly care if the rich pay estate tax or not. I do care about an increase in the Minimum wage. I think the Dems blew their best chance to get it passed for several years. That's my gripe.

It's not just that minimum wage bills don't make it through alone. When attached to a number of other bills they still don't make it through.

For what you are saying (that this was the best chance for Democrats) to stand up you have to assume that the Republicans will have this level of control of Congress for the foreseeable future. And while I'm quite pessimistic about the ability of Democrats to actually win elections (which is partly why, even though I have moved in that direction for the past few years, I have never registered as a Democrat), I think the country is slowly waking up to the fact that having the Republicans in control of everything has not resulted in good governance.

In other words, I see this as the Republicans thinking they might not get another chance at the estate tax and may be forced in the future to actually consider a fair minimum wage increase without the leverage they have now.

* edited to add: I should've said, I'm quite pessimistic that some Secretaries of State around the country will stop doing everything in their power to limit the number of people voting.

RIGHTEOUS9

Saturday, August 5, 2006 10:40 PM

Stupid statement that dems would propose a minimum wage billif they thought it would pass --- they don't get to propose legislation without permission. The only reason they got to propose a recent bill, which I think was a minimum wage increase actually, was if they accepted the provision that the senate needed to pass it by 2/3rds. By normal standards that bill would have passed, but you know, those republicans and their concern for "up or down votes"

GEEZER

Sunday, August 6, 2006 2:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Everybody gets the advantages and some get more out of it than others. If you have 5 employees you benefit from their education. If you have 10000 employess your benefit is substantially greater. If you operate in one city you benefit from that infrastructure. If you operate nationwide you benefit from substantially more infrastructure. And on and on. The logic is that those who benefit the most from taxpayer assistance should pay the most for that benefit. It's dues.

As noted in the Tax Foundation site I linked, the folks with more income already pay the most taxes. The top 5% in income pay around 21% of their taxable income in income tax. The bottom 50% pay 3%. So the tax rates are already pretty progressive. The rich pay more of their income as taxes, by quite a bit, than the middle class or the poor.

Quote:
For what you are saying (that this was the best chance for Democrats) to stand up you have to assume that the Republicans will have this level of control of Congress for the foreseeable future. And while I'm quite pessimistic about the ability of Democrats to actually win elections (which is partly why, even though I have moved in that direction for the past few years, I have never registered as a Democrat), I think the country is slowly waking up to the fact that having the Republicans in control of everything has not resulted in good governance.

In other words, I see this as the Republicans thinking they might not get another chance at the estate tax and may be forced in the future to actually consider a fair minimum wage increase without the leverage they have now.

I dunno. I think the Dems missed a sure chance at increasing the Minimum Wage now for the possibility that they might gain enough in the mid-term elections to get it later. If the Dems had any actual policy or platform, instead of just "We're not Them", I'd feel better about their chances.

If Frist offers the Minimum wage/estate tax bill again after summer recess, as he proposes, and the Dems block it again, I think they'll end up losing votes in November. You know the spinmeisters would play the Dems blocking a minimum wage increase (twice) for all it's worth. As BDN alluded to above, I don't think that the guy who sees his possible $2.10 an hour raise fly out the window is going to feel that it's worthwhile to lose that additional income just to make sure some rich dead guy's kids don't get an extra polo pony or two.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, August 6, 2006 3:40 AM

This is so cool. As long as I use the name Slick, I can say anything I want and he won't answer.

This will require some thought.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 6, 2006 7:12 AM

Quote:
Only 38% of minimum-wagers work full-time. "Married, spouse present" makes up only 24% of the that and only 15% of the female minimum-wage population.-Signy
And increasing the minimum wage wouldn't help these people? Of course it's not going to help everyone equally, but I fail to see how increasing folks' pay is a bad thing.

As you may recall- since you wrote this yourself- the increase was going to help people afford health insurance (BTW I laughed out loud at that one) buy a house, and improve their lives. In other words, when you say "Its a fair deal" you're thinking unrealistically about at least ONE side of the deal, so how can you assess whether it's "fair" or even really helpful?

Quote:
I think I'd appreciate that extra $2.10 an hour more than seeing someone elses money disappear into the Treasury.

Unless of course you were facing a wage CUT from this bill. As Soup pointed out

Quote:
For many employees in seven states, H.R. 5970 means a wage cut/. Section 402 of the bill strikes down state laws that require employers to pay a full minimum wage without relying on tips from customers to reach the minimum level.1 States that have those laws will see the minimum wage for tipped employees fall as much as $5.50 per hour. (in) Seven states—Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington...tipped employees would be left without any minimum wage protection under state law.

Do you still think that's "fair"?

Quote:
If I thought that the Minimum wage could make it through as a stand-alone, I'd say do it. I don't think that will happen. The Dems must not either, or I suppose they'd propose it.

Hmmm, you must have taken your stupid pills today. This major faux pas has already been pointed out to you.

BTW, if I were a Dem strategist, being a Dem I would be unable to officially propose any meaningful minimum-wage legislation. What I WOULD do is take a proposal directly to the press- topping the Republican "offer" by a great deal and then making a point of saying that the Republicans won't consider it in Congress.

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

GEEZER

Sunday, August 6, 2006 4:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As you may recall- since you wrote this yourself- the increase was going to help people afford health insurance ... buy a house, and improve their lives. In other words, when you say "Its a fair deal" you're thinking unrealistically about at least ONE side of the deal, so how can you assess whether it's "fair" or even really helpful?

I figure some people would buy health insurance with their extra $2.10/hr, and some would buy beer, and some better food for their kids, and some an iPod, and some start saving a bit, and some buy more Lotto tickets. It's their choice, but having more money to spend widens their available choices. I don't consider that "unrealistic".

Quote:
Unless of course you were facing a wage CUT from this bill. As Soup pointed out
Quote:
For many employees in seven states, H.R. 5970 means a wage cut/. Section 402 of the bill strikes down state laws that require employers to pay a full minimum wage without relying on tips from customers to reach the minimum level.
Do you still think that's "fair"?

Couple of things about this which would make the impact less than you might imagine. First, nothing says that businesses have to reduce wages of tipped employees. Some will, some won't. Second, there's not that many people in the group which would be impacted. There's only about 550,000 people in the entire country who claim tip income on their tax returns. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03indtr.pdf
Probably quite a bit less in just the seven effected states, and probably even less who are working for minimum plus tips.
Any way you look at it, it's not going to be fair all round. Just raising the minimum wage is going to cost some people jobs, when struggling businesses have to let someone go to afford the higher payroll per person. Does this mean we shouldn't raise the minimum wage?

Quote:
This (error about Dem's Minimum wage bills) has already been pointed out to you.

Yes it has. I respond here as I did then. Historically, stand-alone Minimum Wage bills don't pass, but stand-alone Estate Tax bills do. Why not get the minimum wage through?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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