minimum wage increase?!? only if the wealthiest get a tax break, too

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Well he didn't look very hard there were several in the town I grew up in. I will say in the last few years, they have done much to stop farms from being taken away, but I still don't like the fact that it could happen. Really though, I don't think estates should be taxed unless they are exeedingly wealthy, and in this day and age 5 million is really not that wealthy, that is a standard upper middle class retirement.

The fact remains, the data says otherwise. I am led to believe that you are misled by the reasons these farms went under. Someone is lying to you or you are just getting hearsay. Only the wealthiest 2% of Americans every see the estate tax, is that the "upper middle class"? Not too mention the special provisions for farmers and business owners.

Spend a little more time fact checking and less time listing to the grumpy old guy at the barber 😉

They say that, but they also say that if you have 5 million you will be taxed. So, I guess no one dies in their 50's before they use their retirement.

I don't have the data behind that statistic so I can't tell you how it was figured, but what I do know is that most people shoot for at least 1 million to retire on. So, it would be safe to assume that upper middle class people probably have a good deal more then that. It would also be safe to assume that people do die before they are 55-60 and as such would still have a good percentage of that money when they die. I would not call these people the wealthiest 2%.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Edit: In a way it's worse then that. It is a removal of a way of life practiced by a family of people for generations. If someone willing leaves that life it's one thing, but being forced too is just wrong.

The fact is the people affected are not farmers or small business owners, they are super wealthy. The Paris Hilton tax is a better name by far. The GOP is using farmers.

The farmland alone is worth more than $2.5 million, and so Mr. Riekena, 61, fretted that estate taxes would take a big chunk of his three grown daughters' inheritance.

For most farmers around here, the estate tax is not high in their minds. What we need are better crop prices.

Harlyn Riekena
Iowa Farmer

That might seem a reasonable assumption, what with all the talk in Washington about the need to repeal the estate tax to save the family farm. "To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax," President Bush vowed a month ago; he and many others have made the point repeatedly.

But in fact the Riekenas will owe nothing in estate taxes. Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published.

Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said.

What is more, a farm couple can pass $4.1 million untaxed, so long as the heirs continue farming for 10 years.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0408-02.htm

Edit: Of course this data is old (2001) the limits have been raised again and again, making it even harder for a farmer to ever see an estate tax.

Well he didn't look very hard there were several in the town I grew up in. I will say in the last few years, they have done much to stop farms from being taken away, but I still don't like the fact that it could happen. Really though, I don't think estates should be taxed unless they are exeedingly wealthy, and in this day and age 5 million is really not that wealthy, that is a standard upper middle class retirement.

He probably did look quite hard. A lot of those farms that get sold off are sold because people don't want to work them. Except for farms controlled by massive corporations, farms are not particularly profitable.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

A) SS is a joke and always has been. If you think it's regressive ask Bill Gates if he will ever see a dime of SS back. BTW if it wasn't for the rich not being able to get SS then it would have gone belly up years ago. Also, if you own a business you pay more SS then any one person because you have to match every employee's contribution.

B) Sorry don't know much about FICA so I'll leave that one alone 🙂

C) Sales taxes (at least in the states I have lived in) don't cover food and other essential items. In other words if you are barely making ends meet you will probably not be paying much. Heck here in Florida they have tax free days so you can get stuff for your kids for school.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

I thought liberals said FICA isn't a tax....its an investment/insurance plan/insert point here...........

That's why we have income tax.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

Like Gen said..welcome to life, this is how it works.

you make many assumptions in your arguments. Work on that.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: PacemakerBasically rich people can't win.

They already won, they're rich.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

Like Gen said..welcome to life, this is how it works.

you make many assumptions in your arguments. Work on that.

People make assumtions everyday. Whenever you talk to anyone you have probably made many assumtions without thinking about it.

You assume the person can speak whatever language you are speaking. You assume the person isn't deaf (or at least can read lips). so on and so on.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: PacemakerBasically rich people can't win.

They already won, they're rich.

Ok guess you're right 🙂

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

Like Gen said..welcome to life, this is how it works.

you make many assumptions in your arguments. Work on that.

People make assumtions everyday. Whenever you talk to anyone you have probably made many assumtions without thinking about it.

You assume the person can speak whatever language you are speaking. You assume the person isn't deaf (or at least can read lips). so on and so on.

You don't use assumptions when you are trying to prove a point.

work on your facts, that will help you win arguments.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

A) SS is a joke and always has been. If you think it's regressive ask Bill Gates if he will ever see a dime of SS back. BTW if it wasn't for the rich not being able to get SS then it would have gone belly up years ago. Also, if you own a business you pay more SS then any one person because you have to match every employee's contribution.

B) Sorry don't know much about FICA so I'll leave that one alone 🙂

C) Sales taxes (at least in the states I have lived in) don't cover food and other essential items. In other words if you are barely making ends meet you will probably not be paying much. Heck here in Florida they have tax free days so you can get stuff for your kids for school.

A) Um, SS is generating over $200B in surplus every year! The joke (and a real bad one) is that the SS surplus obscures the true magnitude of the fiscal mismanagement of government. When Bill Gates turns 67, the federal government will begin cutting him monthly SS checks just like it does for the Oracle of Omaha. It's not means tested. Which is a totally separate issue from the earnings cap on SS taxation.

Actually, the primary reason SS didn't go belly up years ago is the Dole Commission that changed various rules (including raising the payroll deduction). If you own a business, you don't pay more . . . unless you pay yourself . . . then you are responsible for the employer and employee, IIRC.

B) You admit to not knowing much about FICA but you don't know much about SS, either which is part of FICA. FICA is basically a catchall term for all of the Social Security programs and Medicare taxes that come directly from your paycheck. Government calls it a 'contribution', people that get paychecks call it taxes. I mentioned FICA as a surrogate for including Medicare in the discussion. Unlike SS, there's no earned income cap so arguably . . . rich people do indeed provide disproportionate support for Medicare.

C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Further, many states are skewing their tax policies away from property and investment income to sales tax. An approach that is incredibly regressive considering lower income people often have neither.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Text

# Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. Louisiana and New Mexico are the states that most recently eliminated their sales tax on food.
#Four states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia.
# Five states ? Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming ? tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates to offset some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population. These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts vary, but typically are insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases.
# Seven states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderate-income families. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

Like Gen said..welcome to life, this is how it works.

you make many assumptions in your arguments. Work on that.

You rely on idioms and truisms for rationale--work on that.

The adage "that's how life works" is rarely, if ever, useful in serious discussion about what to do with some current situation. As the example of the holocaust was intended to show, saying that "that's how life works" in that situation, is clearly wrong because it justifies and evil.

The proper way to argue against raising the minimum wage is to show that the consequences lead to a worse situation than we presently have. This argument has been made in the past, however, and it has turned out to be unsound based on empirical fact, not speculation.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

A) SS is a joke and always has been. If you think it's regressive ask Bill Gates if he will ever see a dime of SS back. BTW if it wasn't for the rich not being able to get SS then it would have gone belly up years ago. Also, if you own a business you pay more SS then any one person because you have to match every employee's contribution.

B) Sorry don't know much about FICA so I'll leave that one alone 🙂

C) Sales taxes (at least in the states I have lived in) don't cover food and other essential items. In other words if you are barely making ends meet you will probably not be paying much. Heck here in Florida they have tax free days so you can get stuff for your kids for school.

A) Um, SS is generating over $200B in surplus every year! The joke (and a real bad one) is that the SS surplus obscures the true magnitude of the fiscal mismanagement of government. When Bill Gates turns 67, the federal government will begin cutting him monthly SS checks just like it does for the Oracle of Omaha. It's not means tested. Which is a totally separate issue from the earnings cap on SS taxation.

Actually, the primary reason SS didn't go belly up years ago is the Dole Commission that changed various rules (including raising the payroll deduction). If you own a business, you don't pay more . . . unless you pay yourself . . . then you are responsible for the employer and employee, IIRC.

B) You admit to not knowing much about FICA but you don't know much about SS, either which is part of FICA. FICA is basically a catchall term for all of the Social Security programs and Medicare taxes that come directly from your paycheck. Government calls it a 'contribution', people that get paychecks call it taxes. I mentioned FICA as a surrogate for including Medicare in the discussion. Unlike SS, there's no earned income cap so arguably . . . rich people do indeed provide disproportionate support for Medicare.

C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Further, many states are skewing their tax policies away from property and investment income to sales tax. An approach that is incredibly regressive considering lower income people often have neither.

Sorry I didn't explain A) enough 🙂

My point is that even the interest on the amount of money Bill Gates has will have him earning too much money to qualify for SS. Hence, he will never see a check. The very rich tend to not get SS because they continue to earn after they retire.

However, you are right in a way. If Bill ever blew all his money then he would be eligible.


Also, busnesses pay more than any individual because they have to match funds on employees. Busnesses tend to be owned by the rich. Therefore, the Rich tend to pay more in SS.

This is not hard and fast and I don't think Ms. Paris has payed much in SS, but hey there are always exceptions.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Andrew Carnegie was against most "social" reforms, because in his opinion if he could do it so could anyone else. When he retired he literally tried to give all his money away and couldn't because it accrued interest too fast. Most rich people are not bad people; they just don't feel that what they earned should be taken away just because they are more successful.

Some rich people are the stereotype or there wouldn't be one, but to label the group as being bad is silly. Many of them have given more money to charity then you will make in your lifetime. You may say this was so they could have a "tax break", but they still gave a charity a ton of money.

Basically rich people can't win. If they keep their money, they are greedy. If they give large amounts of it away, they are dodging taxes.

Like Gen said..welcome to life, this is how it works.

you make many assumptions in your arguments. Work on that.

You rely on idioms and truisms for rationale--work on that.

The adage "that's how life works" is rarely, if ever, useful in serious discussion about what to do with some current situation. As the example of the holocaust was intended to show, saying that "that's how life works" in that situation, is clearly wrong because it justifies and evil.

The proper way to argue against raising the minimum wage is to show that the consequences lead to a worse situation than we presently have. This argument has been made in the past, however, and it has turned out to be unsound based on empirical fact, not speculation.

Oh but it works for Zentroll and GenX. Are you saying I can't use the same rationale?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

A) SS is a joke and always has been. If you think it's regressive ask Bill Gates if he will ever see a dime of SS back. BTW if it wasn't for the rich not being able to get SS then it would have gone belly up years ago. Also, if you own a business you pay more SS then any one person because you have to match every employee's contribution.

B) Sorry don't know much about FICA so I'll leave that one alone 🙂

C) Sales taxes (at least in the states I have lived in) don't cover food and other essential items. In other words if you are barely making ends meet you will probably not be paying much. Heck here in Florida they have tax free days so you can get stuff for your kids for school.

A) Um, SS is generating over $200B in surplus every year! The joke (and a real bad one) is that the SS surplus obscures the true magnitude of the fiscal mismanagement of government. When Bill Gates turns 67, the federal government will begin cutting him monthly SS checks just like it does for the Oracle of Omaha. It's not means tested. Which is a totally separate issue from the earnings cap on SS taxation.

Actually, the primary reason SS didn't go belly up years ago is the Dole Commission that changed various rules (including raising the payroll deduction). If you own a business, you don't pay more . . . unless you pay yourself . . . then you are responsible for the employer and employee, IIRC.

B) You admit to not knowing much about FICA but you don't know much about SS, either which is part of FICA. FICA is basically a catchall term for all of the Social Security programs and Medicare taxes that come directly from your paycheck. Government calls it a 'contribution', people that get paychecks call it taxes. I mentioned FICA as a surrogate for including Medicare in the discussion. Unlike SS, there's no earned income cap so arguably . . . rich people do indeed provide disproportionate support for Medicare.

C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Further, many states are skewing their tax policies away from property and investment income to sales tax. An approach that is incredibly regressive considering lower income people often have neither.

Sorry I didn't explain A) enough 🙂

My point is that even the interest on the amount of money Bill Gates has will have him earning too much money to qualify for SS. Hence, he will never see a check. The very rich tend to not get SS because they continue to earn after they retire.

However, you are right in a way. If Bill ever blew all his money then he would be eligible.


Also, busnesses pay more than any individual because they have to match funds on employees. Busnesses tend to be owned by the rich. Therefore, the Rich tend to pay more in SS.

This is not hard and fast and I don't think Ms. Paris has payed much in SS, but hey there are always exceptions.

There is no means testing for SS. Everyone gets it when they reach the required age.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Critical thinking waved bye bye to you long ago.

People in an at will contract for hire, the people above them making money off their productivity.

A holocaust brought on by a brutal regime.

I can see the apples and oranges already, can you?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Critical thinking waved bye bye to you long ago.

People in an at will contract for hire, the people above them making money off their productivity.

A holocaust brought on by a brutal regime.

I can see the apples and oranges already, can you?

Contracts can be at will under coersion. Your view of people simply having an agreement is too simplistic. There are all sorts of little things to consider--jobs availability, available training, favoritism, educational opportunities, cronyism, bribes, etc. Again, "that's just the way life is" doesn't really add anything to the discussion when you are considering whether something should be the case.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Text

# Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia exempt most food purchased for consumption at home from the state sales tax. Louisiana and New Mexico are the states that most recently eliminated their sales tax on food.
#Four states tax groceries at lower rates than other goods; they are Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia.
# Five states ? Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming ? tax groceries fully but offer credits or rebates to offset some of the taxes paid on food by some portions of the population. These credits or rebates usually are set at a flat amount per family member. The amounts vary, but typically are insufficient to give eligible households full relief from sales taxes paid on food purchases.
# Seven states continue to apply their sales tax fully to food purchased for home consumption without providing any offsetting relief for low- and moderate-income families. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia.

I am absolutely amazed you posted a link to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It's a great cure for the ignorance that abounds on this issue.

Regardless, as of March 2005, Most ... states have in some way eliminated, reduced, or offset the tax as applied to food for home consumption.

Granted is it really surprising about the 5 states that tax groceries fully and then give the equivalent of a difficult to redeem MIR . . . Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming?

Or the seven states with no relief at all for food . . . Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and . . . Hawaii?! What the hell is wrong with HI?!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

CBPP lays the wood

The Tax Policy Center estimates that, if the House proposal were fully in effect in 2011, it would yield an average tax cut of $1.3 million for the 8,200 beneficiaries, relative to making the 2009 estate-tax parameters permanent. [2] Thus, the average tax benefit for these estates would be more than 1,000 times the average yearly income gain for workers who would benefit from the minimum wage change.
---
Finally, these comparisons ignore the fact that costly estate tax reductions must at some point be paid for.
---
* If the costs are eventually financed partly through cuts in federal programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, veterans programs, and unemployment insurance, then the same low-wage workers who benefit from the minimum wage change included in the House bill will have to foot part of the bill for the estate tax cuts.

* Further, there are millions of Americans who will not benefit from the minimum wage increase but who will never accumulate multi-million dollar estates. These middle-income individuals will almost certainly lose from the House bill, when the measures ultimately needed to pay for the bill?s sharp cuts in the estate tax are taken into account.[4]

Basically, the House proposal does nothing for most Americans today and will harm most Americans in the future. You gotta love representative government. It won't happen but I would love for every person that voted for this tripe to get the boot.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: fitzov

The wealthiest Americans get tax cuts because they're the ones that take their money and invest it in the economy.

But they make their money off the backs of the people that work for them.

Welcome to life, this is how it works.

That's how the holocaust worked too--great rationale.

Critical thinking waved bye bye to you long ago.

People in an at will contract for hire, the people above them making money off their productivity.

A holocaust brought on by a brutal regime.

I can see the apples and oranges already, can you?

Contracts can be at will under coersion. Your view of people simply having an agreement is too simplistic. There are all sorts of little things to consider--jobs availability, available training, favoritism, educational opportunities, cronyism, bribes, etc. Again, "that's just the way life is" doesn't really add anything to the discussion when you are considering whether something should be the case.

Oh please coercion? Is this the far fetched scenario you are painting to justify you foolish position? The only time I can think of anybody being coerced into a job is when they were slaves of the state.

You show me a single job in this country where somebody applied for a job and was
coerced into it against their will?

So yes, the owners and upper management will make money off the productivity of the people below them. This is how life is, get used to it. Dont like it? Go become the guy at the top.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: zendari
I don't see how people can look at themselves in the mirror after supporting this discriminatory taxation.

Yep, SS, FICA, and sales taxes are horribly regressive.

A) SS is a joke and always has been. If you think it's regressive ask Bill Gates if he will ever see a dime of SS back. BTW if it wasn't for the rich not being able to get SS then it would have gone belly up years ago. Also, if you own a business you pay more SS then any one person because you have to match every employee's contribution.

B) Sorry don't know much about FICA so I'll leave that one alone 🙂

C) Sales taxes (at least in the states I have lived in) don't cover food and other essential items. In other words if you are barely making ends meet you will probably not be paying much. Heck here in Florida they have tax free days so you can get stuff for your kids for school.

A) Um, SS is generating over $200B in surplus every year! The joke (and a real bad one) is that the SS surplus obscures the true magnitude of the fiscal mismanagement of government. When Bill Gates turns 67, the federal government will begin cutting him monthly SS checks just like it does for the Oracle of Omaha. It's not means tested. Which is a totally separate issue from the earnings cap on SS taxation.

Actually, the primary reason SS didn't go belly up years ago is the Dole Commission that changed various rules (including raising the payroll deduction). If you own a business, you don't pay more . . . unless you pay yourself . . . then you are responsible for the employer and employee, IIRC.

B) You admit to not knowing much about FICA but you don't know much about SS, either which is part of FICA. FICA is basically a catchall term for all of the Social Security programs and Medicare taxes that come directly from your paycheck. Government calls it a 'contribution', people that get paychecks call it taxes. I mentioned FICA as a surrogate for including Medicare in the discussion. Unlike SS, there's no earned income cap so arguably . . . rich people do indeed provide disproportionate support for Medicare.

C) Some states do provide tax breaks or no taxes at all for the purchase of food. But I'm willing to wager most states tax food at some level. Which makes it regressive. Most states tax gasoline and basic utilities. Which makes it regressive. If you are barely making ends meet . . . it sux to be an American since gasoline prices have doubled in the past two years. The tax is almost irrelevant. Same goes for food.

Further, many states are skewing their tax policies away from property and investment income to sales tax. An approach that is incredibly regressive considering lower income people often have neither.

Sorry I didn't explain A) enough 🙂

My point is that even the interest on the amount of money Bill Gates has will have him earning too much money to qualify for SS. Hence, he will never see a check. The very rich tend to not get SS because they continue to earn after they retire.

However, you are right in a way. If Bill ever blew all his money then he would be eligible.


Also, busnesses pay more than any individual because they have to match funds on employees. Busnesses tend to be owned by the rich. Therefore, the Rich tend to pay more in SS.

This is not hard and fast and I don't think Ms. Paris has payed much in SS, but hey there are always exceptions.

There is no means testing for SS. Everyone gets it when they reach the required age.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/COLA/RTeffect.html

Put a large income in there and see how much your benefit is.