1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Republicans!!! Propose Raisng Minum Wage To 7.25

Discussion in 'The OT' started by juan ellitinez, Jul 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    It DOES go up next year, as it will until 2010. But in 2011, the old rules come back..... They are arguing about those dates primarily right now....
     
  2. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    It is?

    "to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered"

    How so?

    So we should tax Christmas gifts and Wedding gifts and Bar Mitzvah gifts, and so on?

    I suppose it has an internal logic but is it moral?
     
  3. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Not saying I agree with it... but there are limits to the amount of things you can give or receive as gifts.

    People are all the time getting in trouble for receiving an extravagant gift that they do not report as income.

    Someone getting a beanie baby isn't likely to be pursued for tax evasion... but someone who receives a Porsche for Christmas is likely to be investigated.
     
  4. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    The protest of "double-taxation" is the oldest ruse on the books. Essentially, government taxes money or "earnings" every time it changes hands. Perhaps it doesn't seem fair, but it does keep the tax burden from falling too heavily on any one segment of the economy or population. ONLY having an income tax would be unfair to some. ONLY having a sales tax unfair to others. And on down the line to capital gains or inheritance taxes.

    In Hawaii, businesses are required to collect the General Excise Tax(our equivalent of sales tax) not only on the goods and services they sell but on total monies collected, INCLUDING the GET! It is literally a tax on a tax and effectively raises the revenue from this source by 4%. Now as a business person, I'm not particularly happy with this arrangement. But if they didn't get the revenue that way, they'd get if some other way and taxes and fees would go up in some other area. And probably go up substantially to make up for 4% of all sales in the state.

    An estate tax would seem to be about the fairest tax one could conceive of. The estate being taxed, ie the person(s) who earned and accumulated the estate, can NEVER benefit from it again. The heirs of an estate have done nothing to "earn" their inheritance except being born by chance to someone who will be leaving an "estate" behind.
     
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    So we should tax Christmas gifts and Wedding gifts and Bar Mitzvah gifts, and so on?

    Yes, you are supposed to tax any gifts if they reach a certain level. Give your employee a new Ferrari for Christmas and it will raise eyebrows. This is certainly no different than the estate tax, which also only applies if it reaches a certain income level.

    suppose it has an internal logic but is it moral?

    As moral as any other tax in my opinion. As yet I've never seen an absolutely perfect tax system. Tax law is always a compromise between spending/benefits received and income.

    A flat tax (either in income or consumption) is only "moral" in that everyone is taxed at an equal rate, but is unfair in that the cost of living takes up a much larger percentage of income for the poor and middle class and the tax thus makes a larger burden for the poor as a percentage of their income. 20% for someone making a minimum wage may mean serious compromises in healthcare, etc. 20% for a millionaire on the other hand may just mean one less trip to Aspen for the holidays. Is that a more moral system?

    The "fair tax law" being pushed by some is a flat tax that sets up two tax levels, thus hopefully allowing the poor to pay no taxes. While people say this is somehow more fair, it is simply a graduated tax with 1 division rather than the 4 or so we have today (and of course based on consumption rather than income).

    Consumption taxes as well is not necessarily more fair than income, as not everyone chooses to spend in the same fashion.
     
  6. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    One of the problems with the arguments in this thread is that they often start with a reasonable premise and then stretch and distort it.

    And BTW yes the old tax rates and exemptiopn levels return in 2010 if no action is taken but no one realistically believes that the law won't be modified betwen now and then. If we could have a reaonable and rational discussion about estate taxes I would weelcome it but we hav all kinds of editing of the facts and then distortions of what is left.

    in other words we are accomplishing even less than we usually do.
     
  7. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Wow, I'm a moderate and I agree with every word you just wrote..... I may not like some of the hard right's social goals (abortion, gay marriage bans, etc.), but I'm lined up with them on this. Everyone always talks about the extremes, when it is the guys in the middle that pay the harshest penalties normally in dealings with the feds....
     
  8. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Jon, I don't have an issue with people being taxed on the receipt of assets from an estate. However, I believe that this should be done at the income tax level rather than the punitive levels of the estate tax.
     
  9. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    So how does elimination of the inheritance tax help "the guys in the middle"?

    Regardless if "two million dollars ain't what it used to be", if when you die, after all your debts are paid, you still leave two million laying around in an estate, you've done alright for yourself and have elevated yourself to at least the upper echelons of the "middle". And unless you have several thousand "heirs", they will all receive a nice little present from you upon your demise.

    Most poor people and many in the "middle" die leaving outstanding debts. They have a "negative" estate. I'm sure figures will vary, but I wonder exactly what percentage of the population leaves a bundle of over two million when they die? I'd be surprised if it was much over 10-20% maybe less. Of course if you're an heir whose inheritance falls into that 10-20%, you're not going to be happy about it. But if you're in the top 20% of income earners, you're also going to pay a higher income tax. If you purchase more goods than the average person, you're going to pay a higher amount of sales tax, etc.

    It's an unfortunate fact of life and history that the burden for taxes falls most heavily on the "middle". The "poor" just don't have the money in the first place and the "rich" can often find ways to pay the least possible and by the very definition of being "rich" are more able to afford paying a higher percentage in taxes.

    It would seem a two million dollar exemption covers most of the "middle" for purposes of this tax. I would be amenable to indexing this amount to account for inflation. But in that case, it would only be fair to index say the minimum wage by the same criteria.:D
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well that's a separate issue. Such huge "windfall" sums would still be theoretically subject to huge income tax rates, although there are ways to avoid at least some of that by investing it in the right instruments, charities, etc. But the larger the "windfall", the more likely the receipient will find a way to shield this income from other forms of taxation. The heirs of "poorer" estates on average will receive less of a windfall and therefore will probably be less likely to be able to avail themselves of these "shields".
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    However, I believe that this should be done at the income tax level rather than the punitive levels of the estate tax.

    hehe... be careful what you wish for.

    From just after WW2 to 1964 the top income tax rate was 91%. During the same period, the estate tax only hit 77% for a high.

    Today's estate tax and income tax rates are rather close together. The 55% percent rate is close to the 50% income tax rate found till the 1980's. Reagan and later presidents cut the income rate, but the estate didn't follow till Bush.
     
  12. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Why should there be?
     
  13. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Because if you don't limit gifts, suddenly everyone will be recieving their weekly gift check rather than a paycheck. ;)

    Oh, he's not an employee... he's just a good friend. *grin*

    And of course gifts have long been a traditional way of avoiding other taxes. (I no longer have the money... I gave it to so and so (who then gives it back later))
     
  14. GeorgeLV

    GeorgeLV Godfather

    359
    0
    Jan 1, 2006
    In 2004 there were 18,800 taxable estates. We're talking about hundredths of a percent of the population that will be affected. That you guesstimated that it could be as high as 10-20% demonstrated what a propaganda job the opponents of the estate tax have done.
     
  15. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,623
    385
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    Hey, don't shoot the messenger :)

    I don't agree with all the tax laws... however, as another poster pointed out... if there were no limts on the amounts of gifts that could be given... then all sorts of things would be described as "gifts" in order to avoid taxes.
     
  16. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    We know exactly what percentage of estates are effected. Doa google search and you will find that it is 2%.

    As for not taxing gifts well if we lived in a world in which there was no dshonesty that might be a good idea. but we don't. So it isn't.
     
  17. GeorgeLV

    GeorgeLV Godfather

    359
    0
    Jan 1, 2006
    2% as a of deaths under the old laws. 0.5% and decreasing (until 2010) under the current law.
     
  18. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well there ya go.

    I was intentionally generous in my guesstimate because I didn't want to be accused later of "underestimating the problem". Obviously the "problem" is rather miniscule.

    But you're right. It's another brilliant PR snow job, a wedge issue if you please. The GOP couldn't provoke any outrage railing against an "estate" tax because most people figured that wouldn't apply to them anyway. So they changed the name to "death tax".:eek2: Suddenly people said to themselves, "Hey, I could die!" Suddenly, there was the outrage they were looking for even though nothing had changed and no more people than before would be effected by the tax.

    It just goes to show, people are sheep. Including myself! BAAAA!
     
  19. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Huh... maybe it would just be better not to tax income. There's a thought.
     
  20. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    We would al like it if there were no taxes. But there are.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page