Tweedling Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 The House passed a bill (230-180) supporting a hike. I found it interesting to hear different perspectives from some people I spoke with this morning. Typically, when I hear opinions on current events I am curious to know what you guys think. Opine?.......anyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 A minimum wage hike is great for those that get to keep their jobs and not so great for those that get laid off (typically minorities) as companies try to cut costs. It's also kind of unnecessary since very few people that make minimum wage keep making it for very long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 spoken like someone who's never worked for less than $5 an hour. i seriously doubt a min wage increase will lead to layoffs as most of the expendible jobs have already been outsourced to the developing world. minimum wage is criminally low in this country. i understand the inflationary argument against such a wage, but the same inflationary principles apply to margin gouging. given a choice, i'd rather inflation come from more particiation in the economy than less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 It's also kind of unnecessary since very few people that make minimum wage keep making it for very long.I'd like to see some figures on that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 spoken like someone who's never worked for less than $5 an hour. i seriously doubt a min wage increase will lead to layoffs as most of the expendible jobs have already been outsourced to the developing world. I don't see what job experience has to do with my argument. And not all jobs can be outsourced. I'll be really impressed when someone in India is able to take my fast food order. I'd like to see some figures on that. I don't remember where I saw them, but I'll see if I can find them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ScottHoward Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 I'll be really impressed when someone in India is able to take my fast food order.Not too far away... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7149812/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 I'd like to see some figures on that. Here are the figures I found: http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics.cfm "The average family income for employees who would Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Not too far away... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7149812/ It's already done on a small-scale now. Orders in Florida are sent to Philly and sent back within seconds. I don't remember if that's the exact location, but it's somewhat like it. Read: The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. It's enlightening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ScottHoward Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Read: The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. It's enlightening.How do you think I knew about that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 The worst part of this is the repeal of the estate tax that is tacked onto the minimum wage hike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 estate tax death tax Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted July 29, 2006 Author Share Posted July 29, 2006 The worst part of this is the repeal of the estate tax that is tacked onto the minimum wage hike. Why is that a bad thing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 Why is that a bad thing?Well...the estate tax really only affects about 1% of the wealthiest Americans..but will cost the Government an estimated 25 billion per year.The sad thing to me is that Congress voted down a package that would cost approx. 650 million a year that would have been able to inspect nearly every package/container in our ports....too expensive So I guess it's more important,in fact,40 TIMES more important to let the wealthiest 1% of us keep even more of their money but a bill that would help make ALL of us a little bit safer as part of Homeland Security is deemed to be too expensive. Friends, this is why we have to clean house come November Scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted July 29, 2006 Author Share Posted July 29, 2006 Well...the estate tax really only affects about 1% of the wealthiest Americans..but will cost the Government an estimated 25 billion per year. Is that money "rightfully" the governments? Havent those people already been taxed? Friends, this is why we have to clean house come November Who are the best bets to win seats for the Dems? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
groselicain Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 (edited) Is that money "rightfully" the governments? Havent those people already been taxed?Who are the best bets to win seats for the Dems?Amen. Well...the estate tax really only affects about 1% of the wealthiest Americans..but will cost the Government an estimated 25 billion per year.The sad thing to me is that Congress voted down a package that would cost approx. 650 million a year that would have been able to inspect nearly every package/container in our ports....too expensive So I guess it's more important,in fact,40 TIMES more important to let the wealthiest 1% of us keep even more of their money but a bill that would help make ALL of us a little bit safer as part of Homeland Security is deemed to be too expensive. Friends, this is why we have to clean house come November Scott This sounds an awful lot like the argument that a former German teacher used every day. I'm sure everyone's heard it before: "90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the people." First off, I like to keep my money when I make it. I'm sure the 1% you're talking about, as well as the 10% I mentioned, feel the same way. For someone like myself who used to make less than three dollars an hour inserting newspapers, taxes hurt. But at the same time, I'm not going to claim that people who make more than me or own more than me are keeping me from making more money. If those people made their money, who am I to say that they should be taxed more than me so our earnings will be closer together? Let's just face it, the 10% who own 90% of the wealth also pay 90% of the taxes. Let's just leave them alone and all try to work together and make America great again. Edited July 29, 2006 by groselicain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 but that 10% ISNT PAYING 90% of the tax! that is how a progressive income tax is SUPPOSED to work, but it's been adjusted quite a lot since it was instituted. a very heavy estate tax would ensure that those with wealth were the ones who earned it/worked for it, rather than having an aristocracy in this country. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
groselicain Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 but that 10% ISNT PAYING 90% of the tax! that is how a progressive income tax is SUPPOSED to work, but it's been adjusted quite a lot since it was instituted. a very heavy estate tax would ensure that those with wealth were the ones who earned it/worked for it, rather than having an aristocracy in this country. Where do you get that? Honestly? I'm not saying it's not true, I'd just like to see numbers so if I'm wrong, I can change my mind. Really, I don't see a problem with an 'aristocracy' as you called it. Every country has one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted July 29, 2006 Share Posted July 29, 2006 one reason for getting rid of aristocracies...... needisaymore? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Where do you get that? Honestly? I'm not saying it's not true, I'd just like to see numbers so if I'm wrong, I can change my mind. Really, I don't see a problem with an 'aristocracy' as you called it. Every country has one.http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm#1 every country also had a king at one point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
groselicain Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Haha, I haven't looked at the numbers yet, which, by the way, I thank you for taking the time to get, but I just noticed that the site that came from was the Archdiosese of St. Paul and Minnesota. Why are they teaching Social Justice and 101 Things you need to know about taxes? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 The argument against the estate tax that it has already been taxed is ridiculous. Every tax is on money that has already been taxed at some point. When you pay sales tax, you're using money that was already taxed when you earned it, for example. The main difference is that the money being taxed under the estate tax was not earned. It's a completely false (and intentionally misleading by those who first used it) argument. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Haha, I haven't looked at the numbers yet, which, by the way, I thank you for taking the time to get, but I just noticed that the site that came from was the Archdiosese of St. Paul and Minnesota. Why are they teaching Social Justice and 101 Things you need to know about taxes?Lots of religious groups are involved in and take postitions on social justice issues, including truly progressive systems of taxation and increasing the minimum wage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Here are the figures I found: http://www.epionline.org/mw_statistics.cfm "The average family income for employees who would “benefit” from the proposed $2.10 minimum wage hike is $45,558. Why? Nearly six out of seven of these employees either live with their parents or relatives, have a working spouse, or are single and don't have children. Virtually all minimum wage employees will see their incomes rise as they increase their value to employers by gaining skills through experience. Analysis of US Census Bureau data shows the median raise these employees receive is six times higher than that of employees earning above the minimum wage. This traditional growth out of entry-level employment explains why less than 1% of employees above the age of 25 are working at the minimum wage. Among that tiny minority are the low-skilled adults we want to help. They are also the very people who lose their jobs when the minimum wage is hiked."That's from an extremely biased source. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterE...0/dead-end_jobs "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Moreover, only three percent of all hourly workers and two percent of wage and salary earners earn minimum wages. Most minimum wage earners are young -- 53 percent are between the ages of 16 and 24. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; 40 percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $60,000 and higher, and over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents."Guess what? Another extremely biased source. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 Is that money "rightfully" the governments? Havent those people already been taxed? Is any money "rightfully" the government's? And repealing MORE taxes on the wealthiest at this time is short-sighted bullshit given the state of our shiny new $8 trillion debt. It's appalling to think that someone wealthy beyond most of our wildest dreams would have to opt for the non-heated leather seats because they're required to pony up their fair share. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Woodgrain Posted July 30, 2006 Share Posted July 30, 2006 This entire minimum-wage increase 'debate' is a farce. The Democratic party has been putting forth minimum wage increases every year since the last increase, and they have been shut down by Republican majorities at every turn. Now, when the American people are realizing that this do-nothing Congress has effectively accomplished nothing outside of needlessly debating wedge issues for the last year, they suddenly find it in their heart to put forth a wage hike? ...with attached benefits to large businesses and billionaires? It's not even a valid argument, and the American people should see it as such. It's a political maneuver designed to neuter the Democratic party's genuine platform for economic reform, and it smacks of the same kind of trickery that they have used on their 'debates' regarding the Iraq War, gay marriage, and flag burning. It's just another example that the current Congressional leadership would rather play on the emotions of the electorate and retain their seats than actually accomplish something for their constituency. Fuck that. (I've been gone forever and ever and ever because I am working a lot, but if any of you are interested, you can check out my blog over at Deny My Freedom.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.