...and the rich get richer.

[lucky-E-leven]

Vella sent me THIS link today. Curious about your thoughts on the matter.

Minimum wage increase tied to tax cuts
House leadership couples bill to estate tax measure

Friday, July 28, 2006; Posted: 6:22 p.m. EDT (22:22 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican leaders are willing to allow the first minimum wage increase in a decade but only if it's coupled with a cut in future inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates, congressional aides said Friday.

A package GOP leaders planned to bring to a vote Friday or Saturday in the House also would renew several popular tax breaks, including a research and development credit for businesses, and deductions for college tuition and state sales taxes, said a spokesman for House Majority Leader John Boehner.

The wage would increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour, phased in over the next three years, said Kevin Madden, the aide to Boehner, an Ohio Republican.
The maneuver is aimed at defusing the wage hike as a campaign issue for Democrats while using its popularity to spur enactment of the Republican Party's long-sought goal of permanently cutting taxes on millionaires' estates.
The Senate could take it up next week before leaving on a monthlong recess.
"It's going to be one hell of a rumpus," predicted Eric Ueland, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's chief of staff.

Democrats decry 'blackmail'

Democrats immediately expressed outrage, saying low-income workers deserved a straight vote on increasing the minimum wage uncoupled to other measures. "It's political blackmail to say the only way that minimum wage workers can get a raise is to give a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts. "Members of Congress raised their own pay -- no strings attached. Surely, common decency suggests that minimum wage workers deserve the same respect."

"It's outrageous the Republican Congress can't simply help poor people without doing something for their wealthy contributors," said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio.
House lawmakers were to discuss the package at an early afternoon session, while the Senate GOP aide professed confidence the bill could advance through the chamber next week. The aide asked not to be identified publicly because of the ongoing closed strategy sessions on the bill. "It's the one chance for Democrats who want to get a minimum wage increase," the aide said.

Rank-and-file press GOP leadership

The move comes after almost 50 rank-and-file Republican lawmakers pressed House leaders -- who strongly oppose the wage hike and have thus far prevented a vote -- to schedule the measure for debate. Democrats have been hammering away on the wage hike issue and have public opinion behind them. "We weren't going to be denied," said Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Ohio, a leader in the effort. "How can you defend $5.15 an hour in today's economy?"

It was a decade ago, during the hotly contested campaign year of 1996, that Congress voted to increase the minimum wage. A person working 40 hours per week at minimum wage makes $10,700, which is below the poverty line for workers with families.

In advancing the tax plan, GOP leaders excluded a measure popular with small businesses that would make it easier for small businesses and the self-employed to band together and buy health insurance plans for employees at a lower cost.

That idea was blasted as a "poison pill" by Democrats and labor unions. The small business health insurance bill exempts new "association health plans" from state regulations requiring insurers to cover treatments such as mental health and maternity care. And opponents fear they would offer inferior prescription drug benefits.

Democrats have made increasing the wage a pillar of their campaign platform and are pushing to raise the wage to $7.25 per hour over two years. In June, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to raise the minimum wage, rejecting a proposal from Democrats.

It's long been clear that there is wide support for the wage increase in the House, but Republican leaders have a general policy of bringing legislation to the floor only if it has support from a majority of Republicans. Perhaps one-fourth of House Republicans support the wage increase.

Inflation has eroded the minimum wage's buying power to the lowest level in about 50 years. Yet lawmakers have won cost-of-living wage increases totaling about $35,000 for themselves over that time.

Lawmakers fear being pounded with 30-second campaign ads over the August recess that would tie Congress' upcoming $3,300 pay increase with Republicans' refusal to raise the minimum wage.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Are you sure you want to do this, Lucky?

You realize, of course that you are waving a red cape in front of many people on both sides here? Ami is back, and I am loaded for bear with data. The other side is ready to trot out that stupid union-sponsored "think tank" study from Baltimore from the early 1990s for the eight-zillionth time, because it is the only one . . . There I go. Are you sure, dear?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Am I sure I want to know what others think? Yes, I'm sure. This is the first I've heard of it, so I'm not here to fight about it. It just caught my attention and I'm curious to see how others view things.

 

[impressive]

I think it's a cheap political trick intended to take the steam out of a campaign issue.

If politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle) had any shred of integrity, the issues would be debated and voted upon separately -- on their individual merits.

 

[Guest]

I think it's a cheap political trick intended to take the steam out of a campaign issue.

If politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle) had any shred of integrity, the issues would be debated and voted upon separately -- on their individual merits.

Amen.

Meanwhile, the search for a family farm that was lost because of the estate tax continues. Anyone with knowledge of one, please call the RNC. Reward.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Am I sure I want to know what others think? Yes, I'm sure. This is the first I've heard of it, so I'm not here to fight about it. It just caught my attention and I'm curious to see how others view things.

And yet, it will be world war three . . .

Well no, that's the Israel thread. But it will be a lively skirmish.

Ami will pile in with the moral case, I will pile on the economic studies showing it causes unemployment and mostly benefits people who are not from poor households, Pure will cite the study from the other side, several will jerk tears with heartbreaking stories about families trying to support seven kids on minimum wage, hotel managers will explain how some of the dufus kids they hire aren't even worth minumum wage, and so it will go. At the end of the day everyone will conclude as usual that of course Roxanne is absolutely right and weren't we silly to not recognize it all along.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think it's a cheap political trick intended to take the steam out of a campaign issue.

If politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle) had any shred of integrity, the issues would be debated and voted upon separately -- on their individual merits.

Hey - we have a growing concensus on one aspect of the story! Me-three.

 

[Oblimo]

Meanwhile, the search for a family farm that was lost because of the estate tax continues. Anyone with knowledge of one, please call the RNC. Reward.

You'll never ever find one, unless it was lost due to attorney malpractice. I expect that this has been mentioned the last time this flamewar brewed, but I think it warrants repeating:

* Thanks to the Unified Tax Credit, an individual can inherit almost $1.5 million dollars and not pay a penny in estate taxes.

* Spouses do not pay inheritance tax.

* With a simple will, a married couple can leave almost $3.0 million to their kids without anyone paying a single penny in estate taxes.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You'll never ever find one, unless it was lost due to attorney malpractice. I expect that this has been mentioned the last time this flamewar brewed, but I think it warrants repeating:

* Thanks to the Unified Tax Credit, an individual can inherit almost $1.5 million dollars and not pay a penny in estate taxes.

* Spouses do not pay inheritance tax.

* With a simple will, a married couple can leave almost $3.0 million to their kids without anyone paying a single penny in estate taxes.

Back up those stats, and I'll be impressed. As far as I can tell, the estate tax is an assault on the income of dead people, a final insult from the government before one joins the shades of the underworld.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

And yet, it will be world war three . . .

Well no, that's the Israel thread. But it will be a lively skirmish.

Ami will pile in with the moral case, I will pile on the economic studies showing it causes unemployment and mostly benefits people who are not from poor households, Pure will cite the study from the other side, several will jerk tears with heartbreaking stories about families trying to support seven kids on minimum wage, hotel managers will explain how some of the dufus kids they hire aren't even worth minumum wage, and so it will go. At the end of the day everyone will conclude as usual that of course Roxanne is absolutely right and weren't we silly to not recognize it all along.

I will admit to not knowing that much about any specific issue that you mentioned. The one thing that keeps catching me, though, is that the cost of living over the last ten years has gone up and yet the wages have remained the same. Gas prices alone were at least two dollars per gallon less back then. I just can't fathom a single person getting along very well with less than $40 per day for a full 8 hours, let alone a larger family with no craft or skill to qualify them for a more specialized position. It just leaves my mouth hanging open.

~lucky

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I will admit to not knowing that much about any specific issue that you mentioned. The one thing that keeps catching me, though, is that the cost of living over the last ten years has gone up and yet the wages have remained the same. Gas prices alone were at least two dollars per gallon less back then. I just can't fathom a single person getting along very well with less than $40 per day for a full 8 hours, let alone a larger family with no craft or skill to qualify them for a more specialized position. It just leaves my mouth hanging open.

~lucky

I will try to answer in a way that does not generate a firestorm.

My heart goes out to anyone who has to try to maintain a household on a limited income. Our society does help out in various ways. A mother making $10,000 on a minimum or near-mimimun wage job gets a cash refund of up to an additional $4,500 from the Earned Income Tax Credit, qualifies for food stamps worth around $2,000, and has health care coverage for the kids and probably herself through Medicaid. It adds up to more than $16,000 in cash or near cash, plus health care. Many forms of housing subsidies are available. Lord knows living on that is no day at the park, but it possible, and more important, it's possible to get ahead.

Here is the key point, though: Less than 20 percent of mimimum wage earners are living in poverty. More than two thirds have a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty line, and almost half belong to families earning double the poverty level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.

In other words, the typical minimum wage recipient is not a poor father or mother scrambling to keep a family fed, clothed and housed. Many are solidly in the middle class. These include teenagers working at McD's and other household members supplementing family income with part time jobs, for example.

The problem with the minimum wage is that it is inefficient at accomplishing the goal sought by it's sincere supporters, which is giving a leg up to those at the lower end. It skews labor markets in ways that are harmful to those with no or low job skills by making it harder to get an entry-level job. I might hire a marginal worker at $5.15, but will be less likely to at $6.65. If we choose as a society to help those at the low end, and we pretty much do, there are much better ways to accomplish the goal, that have fewer unintended negative consequences.

And that leads to the other kind of minimum wage increase proponents - the insincere ones. These include anti-capitalists whose real agenda is to "stress" the system, and union bosses who don't care about those at the very bottom but whose $22/hour workers benefit indirectly in various ways. Then there are the worst cynics of all - demagogic politicians who trade on the ignorance and "Oprahfication" of the general public. All three groups know that the minimum wage is not the best way to help those at the bottom, but for their own cynical reasons support it anyway.

I am a libertarian and don't like any government interference in markets, not just for the moral reasons that Ami would cite, but because of those damaging unintended consequences. I am also someone who does not mind helping out those at the lower end, but in ways that do not backfire by reducing the economic and productivity growth that are the only real ways to genuinely lift all boats. (And also that don't create moral hazard - an incentive to not work - like permanent cash benefits for able-bodies welfare recipients.)A rich society can do a lot more to help those at the bottom than a poor one; laws that make harder to grow the economy end up hurting the poor most of all.

I could add more qualifications, but in the interest of avoiding controversy I'll leave it at that.

 

[Oblimo]

Back up those stats, and I'll be impressed. As far as I can tell, the estate tax is an assault on the income of dead people, a final insult from the government before one joins the shades of the underworld.

Those aren't stats. That's the law as it is written. I urge you to read the Federal Estate Tax Statute before you form such a passionate opinion about it.

Oh, and consider this: Dead people can't make any income. Why? They're dead. The estate tax is a tax on the living; on the deceased's heirs. Why? Because the dead have no legal rights, because they're, you know, dead.

 

[Liar]

Here is the key point, though: Less than 20 percent of mimimum wage earners are living in poverty.

So, in other words, there are people who have jobs, and still can't feed their kids? Am I the only one that feels that is slightly fucked up? Wouldn't that kinda imply that the wages paid to those people, either if it's set by law or by the employer, are not fair? Or maybe I'm missing something. What is the definition of poverty here, re: living standards?

A rich society can do a lot more to help those at the bottom than a poor one;

Yes, but will it, unless told to?

Cynical? Moi?

But hey, I'm a strict utilitarian in most aspects, so I have no problem with getting at the "minimum wage cheaters" (kids living at home, et al) if that somehow gets those one outta five pushed over the edge a better deal. But ooh, that would also mean Government Iintrusion of Rights, because I would have to start treating people not as individuals, but as members of households. Which means people are not sovereign. Which opens up a whole new can of worms regarding economic dependancy in assymetric households.

Ah bugger, I just can't win, can I?

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I will try to answer in a way that does not generate a firestorm.

My heart goes out to anyone who has to try to maintain a household on a limited income. Our society does help out in various ways. A mother making $10,000 on a minimum or near-mimimun wage job gets a cash refund of up to an additional $4,500 from the Earned Income Tax Credit, qualifies for food stamps worth around $2,000, and has health care coverage for the kids and probably herself through Medicaid. It adds up to more than $16,000 in cash or near cash, plus health care. Many forms of housing subsidies are available. Lord knows living on that is no day at the park, but it possible, and more important, it's possible to get ahead.

I see where you're going with this, but I feel that it's asking a lot of someone to require so many government benefits when they are working full time hours and presumably attempting to sustain themselves without. I know that I would not personally be real thrilled with having to rely on food stamps so that I could not only eat, but also earn more than 10K per year. The mere thought actually makes me queasy. Tax credit is a good thing, but if I understand correctly is money that person has already earned, was taxed, and then given back to them. It's odd to pay into a system that's just going to pay right back to you. Why not bump them up a dollar or two an hour and they'll be out of the bracket that needs the EIC?

Here is the key point, though: Less than 20 percent of mimimum wage earners are living in poverty. More than two thirds have a family income that is at least 50 percent higher than the poverty line, and almost half belong to families earning double the poverty level. One fifth of low-income workers belong to families earning over $80,000 annually.

In other words, the typical minimum wage recipient is not a poor father or mother scrambling to keep a family fed, clothed and housed. Many are solidly in the middle class. These include teenagers working at McD's and other household members supplementing family income with part time jobs, for example.

I find this example frustrating because I was once a person in this situation, and because my folks made a certain amount of money I could barely pay partial rent and utilities, let alone deal with cars and insurance and health was out, etc. I fail to see how people earning minimum wage are to get ahead. It strikes me as a situation that merely perpetuates the need for government assistance as well as locking the person in to a wage-earner position interminably.

The problem with the minimum wage is that it is inefficient at accomplishing the goal sought by it's sincere supporters, which is giving a leg up to those at the lower end. It skews labor markets in ways that are harmful to those with no or low job skills by making it harder to get an entry-level job. I might hire a marginal worker at $5.15, but will be less likely to at $6.65. If we choose as a society to help those at the low end, and we pretty much do, there are much better ways to accomplish the goal, that have fewer unintended negative consequences.

And that leads to the other kind of minimum wage increase proponents - the insincere ones. These include anti-capitalists whose real agenda is to "stress" the system, and union bosses who don't care about those at the very bottom but whose $22/hour workers benefit indirectly in various ways. Then there are the worst cynics of all - demagogic politicians who trade on the ignorance and "Oprahfication" of the general public. All three groups know that the minimum wage is not the best way to help those at the bottom, but for their own cynical reasons support it anyway.

I am a libertarian and don't like any government interference in markets, not just for the moral reasons that Ami would cite, but because of those damaging unintended consequences. I am also someone who does not mind helping out those at the lower end, but in ways that do not backfire by reducing the economic and productivity growth that are the only real ways to genuinely lift all boats. (And also that don't create moral hazard - an incentive to not work - like permanent cash benefits for able-bodies welfare recipients.)A rich society can do a lot more to help those at the bottom than a poor one; laws that make harder to grow the economy end up hurting the poor most of all.

I could add more qualifications, but in the interest of avoiding controversy I'll leave it at that.

I struggle with the fact that where other areas of market stability and government programs need reform/refinement, the minimum wage is what takes the hit because it's a salve. It seems to me that if small businesses and other areas of the market are that instable, there should be a little effort spent attempting a fix. I don't know too many people that get by well on our current minimum wage. Until I finish school, I would easily fall into the minimum wage category. The numbers might work out on paper to get by, but there is little to no getting ahead on minimum wage and receiving government assistance.

I freely admit to not having a huge working knowledge of our economy, but I do have first hand knowledge of living on very little and getting nowhere near ahead. So, my purpose is to learn more, but if your purpose is to tell me that our minimum wage is currently a fair wage, I'm afraid I must politely disagree.

~lucky

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So, in other words, there are people who have jobs, and still can't feed their kids? Am I the only one that feels that is slightly fucked up? Wouldn't that kinda imply that the wages paid to those people, either if it's set by law or by the employer, are not fair? Or maybe I'm missing something. What is the definition of poverty here, re: living standards?
Yes, but will it, unless told to?

Cynical? Moi?

But hey, I'm a strict utilitarian in most aspects, so I have no problem with getting at the "minimum wage cheaters" (kids living at home, et al) if that somehow gets those one outta five pushed over the edge a better deal. But ooh, that would also mean Government Iintrusion of Rights, because I would have to start treating people not as individuals, but as members of households. Which means people are not sovereign. Which opens up a whole new can of worms regarding economic dependancy in assymetric households.

Ah bugger, I just can't win, can I?

C'mon Liar, I tried real hard to be open-minded and reasonable about this - how 'bout meeting me half-way? You failed to engage any of the serious negative unintended consequences I cited, but just erected straw men and jumped right onto "if it would only help one person" (or one-out-of-five) kind of posturing. What do you want to accomplish here - actually help people, or show how much you "care" and to hell with whether it helps or not? I mentioned one form of assistance to the working poor that has far fewer unintended consequences - EITC - and you ignored that. Would you like to talk about increasing that, or just posture about MW? I mentioned another - food stamps. This gets more into the danger of moral hazard, but I'm willing to talk about that, too - or would you rather just posture?

I'm sorry to be cross here, but it's hard to not be impatient when the legitimate issues I raise are ignored, and the only response is posturing. I mean, it's not like there are a dozen people making arguments on my side, as there surely will be on the other side if we genuinely get into this. The least you could do is engage my arguments.

 

[SeaCat]

Oh boy, here we go again.

It's hard to argue against this, especially having lived on minimum wage. Then again it's hard to argue against the logic put forth by the bussiness owners.

Yes I do know people who are living on the Minimum Wage, people who are trying to make ends meet on it. They have a truly hard time doing so. On the other hand I know kids and spouses of those who are making much more than minimum wage, who are making the minimum and claim that they are doing quite well.

Where I live housing costs are up. It costs a minimum of $850.00 a month to rent a one bedroom apartment here. (That's in the neighborhoods where you might wish to own a bullet proof vest, the neighborhoods where if you have a wife you would walk her to the bus station because you don't care to have her raped.) Where I live a gallon of milk costs $3.00 and gas is right there. Where a pound of cheap hamburger costs a bit over $2.00. Yes it is expensive here.

Yet I managed to buy myself a mobile home. I paid $1000.00 for it because it needed some work. I bought it because it did need the work, and therefore was down in my price range. I know of at least three more units in my park that can be had for this price for the same reason.

Now the problem I have with people saying they don't make enough money to live is that these units still sit vacant. The same people who are crying to me, many of them making twice what my wife and I make, that they can't afford a place to live refuse to buy these places because they need work. They don't want to work for their place, they want to have a perfect place handed to them. Why? Why are they not willing to work for a place to live, a place they can call their own?

Cat

 

[Guest]

As far as I can tell, the estate tax is an assault on the income of dead people, a final insult from the government before one joins the shades of the underworld.

<snark>So, you'd rather pay the taxes from your hourly income, than to have it come from a dead guy who no longer needs it?</snark>

Actually, the estate tax is a sensible tax that helps control the accumulation and centralization of wealth.

With accumulation of weath, comes accumulation of power. Thus, an individual finds himself one of the weathiest and most powerful in his society not from any accomplishment or talents or work on his part, but simply from having won the "sperm" war and having a grandfather or great-grandfather with talents and accomplishment. This person should have more power in society than other people?

Estate taxes helped bring the demise of the feudal society, and abolishing the tax can bring feudalism back.

To minimize the estate tax exposure, causes individuals to leave some of their income to charities thus benefiting the societies in which the deceased has found success. Charities are very fearful of their funding, should the estate tax be repealed.

But perhaps the thing that sticks in my craw the most is the utter dishonesty by those trying to remove the estate tax. They first tried to posit that families were unable to leave the family farm to the next generation, but as I joked earlier, they are still searching for a single case of this supposedly wide spread factor.

When Democrats responded to an estate tax bill with one that protected estates of several million, but not the biggest estates making up a tiny percentage of all estates, Republicans objected--showing their true intents. They want large acculations of weath to occur, confident of growing a huge political piggy bank for themselves from the scraps handed out by a grateful new American aristocracy.

"But the children are entitled to the money." some argue. Entitled, entitlements? I thought those were dirty words to the Right??

Tori Spelling is a good example, and recent. Her father, Aaron Spelling left a 500 Million dollar estate. Tori, due to a fight with her father's wife, is going to get slightly less than a million. Assume for a moment that was, not because of a feud, but because of the estate tax.

Is she being ripped off? She presumably got a wonderful, expensive education provided by her wealthy father, travels across the world, employment opportunities she wouldn't have gotten otherwise, absolutely GOLD contacts within her chosen profession and a lot more opportunites. Now she is 30 something, with all those advantages and nearly a million dollars. Someone rip me off that bad, please.

The rest of his income goes to charities and to the tax base of the country to build roads, help defend the US, educate children, provide health care etc etc. etc.

What I'd like the hear is one honest Republican say, "We need to repeal the estate taxes because our weathy contributors told us to do so."

a final insult from the government

Started with a snark, so let me go out on one...

<snark>Have many dead complained?</snark>

I just can't fathom why anyone would want tax burdens shifted from the dead onto themselves.

 

[cloudy]

I mentioned another - food stamps. This gets more into the danger of moral hazard, but I'm willing to talk about that, too - or would you rather just posture?

Roxanne, do you really have any idea how much in food stamps you get for, say, a single mother and two kids?

It's not enough to feed yourselves, I promise....less than $300 a month...AND while it doesn't pay to go to work for minimum wage with two pre-school age children, your benefits will start going down after three months if you don't show proof that you are looking for a job.

Around here, it's reasonably cheap to live, so we'll take an example from real life: one of my best friends.

She has two small children, she's separated, so there's no child support order yet, but fortunately, her husband isn't a complete asshole, and he helps her out, or she wouldn't make it. Let's just say she took a min. wage job, just for the sake of argument.

If she works 40 hours a week, she'll bring home something around $700 a month.

Her trailer, utilities (water, electric) included is $425 a month, and it's not a nice one, believe me, but it's the best she can do.

That leaves her $275 a month.

Childcare is around $125/week here for two kids....X 4.25 weeks a month, that makes her childcare bill $531.25/mo.

Explain to me, please, how this single mother will even be able to pay to get to work, much less take care of her children, even with gov't benefits.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I see where you're going with this, but I feel that it's asking a lot of someone to require so many government benefits when they are working full time hours and presumably attempting to sustain themselves without. I know that I would not personally be real thrilled with having to rely on food stamps so that I could not only eat, but also earn more than 10K per year. The mere thought actually makes me queasy. Tax credit is a good thing, but if I understand correctly is money that person has already earned, was taxed, and then given back to them. It's odd to pay into a system that's just going to pay right back to you. Why not bump them up a dollar or two an hour and they'll be out of the bracket that needs the EIC?

They get extra money back, not just the money that was withheld. It's like a "negative income tax."

Another item I should mention is the 15 percent social security tax. Low income workers really get hurt by this one. I won't open the SS can of worms here, but it is unquestionably a very regressive tax.

I find this example frustrating because I was once a person in this situation, and because my folks made a certain amount of money I could barely pay partial rent and utilities, let alone deal with cars and insurance and health was out, etc. I fail to see how people earning minimum wage are to get ahead. It strikes me as a situation that merely perpetuates the need for government assistance as well as locking the person in to a wage-earner position interminably.

I can't tell if you were in a separate household or not living with your folks. It sounds like the former. The examples I cited were the latter. I admit it's not easy for those starting out, or without skills. What I'm saying is, there are better ways to help that don't skew markets in ways that slow the economic growth that helps everyone. Those at the bottom are the ones hit hardest by recessions.

I struggle with the fact that where other areas of market stability and government programs need reform/refinement, the minimum wage is what takes the hit because it's a salve. It seems to me that if small businesses and other areas of the market are that instable, there should be a little effort spent attempting a fix. I don't know too many people that get by well on our current minimum wage. Until I finish school, I would easily fall into the minimum wage category. The numbers might work out on paper to get by, but there is little to no getting ahead on minimum wage and receiving government assistance.

This is very close to saying our public policy on economic issues is screwed up in other areas, so why not screw it up even more in this area, also. I can't accept that. I want to un-screw up policy.

I freely admit to not having a huge working knowledge of our economy, but I do have first hand knowledge of living on very little and getting nowhere near ahead. So, my purpose is to learn more, but if your purpose is to tell me that our minimum wage is currently a fair wage, I'm afraid I must politely disagree. ~lucky

Define "fair." Is it fair to ask a small business owner who only gets $5.15 worth of value from an employee to pay the person $6.65? It's actually an irrelevent question - the business won't hire the employee if it loses money by doing so. Is that person better off not having a $6.65 job or really having a $5.15 job?

Look at it another way. Imagine a small retail store, say Apu the Indian guy on the Simpsons' convenience store. He busts his butt 14 hours a day to keep the thing going. He is deeply in debt, and has bet his entire economic future on this business, accepting a tremendous risk. If things go well his risk is rewarded by him making maybe $50,000 in a good year, but he makes nothing or loses money in a bad year. How fair is it to force him to make only $45,000 in a good year, and lose even more money in a bad year, so that some middle class teenager he hires to work the register part time can get paid more than they are worth?

It is on the margin, and not with a view to the big picture, that economic decisions are made. We want more Apu's, not fewer. Your "feel good" public policy will mean that rather than 100 new Apu's expanding our economy next year, there will only be 95. The cumulative effects of chipping away at the margins like this add up over just a few years, and the entire society is less well off than it would have been - especially those at the bottom. I have given some of the explanations for why this is so, and expressed a willingness to work together to find ways to accomplish the goal we all seek - helping people work their way up from the bottom - without creating these kinds of unintended negative consequences. Let's be smart about this, not dumb. Let's really help, not just pretend to help. Let's do things that work, not just posture. It is possible, it is a choice we can make. Which will you choose?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Am I missing something?

I just did a $15 millions estate a year ago. Nearly the entire estate was in various Trusts so, not only did the estate pass tax free, but the recipiants got a "bump" on the Fair Market Value of the assets to current value. The end result was the estate paid $8,000 in taxes on $15,000,000.

That is not an unusual situation. Estate Taxes genrally are only a drop in the bucket compared to the actual assesment the Estate should pay. Why is this? Because the same people who passed the legislation allowing this mess are the same people who are now tying minimum wage to Estate Taxes.

Doing this is like mixing apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. To make matters worse, it's being done with a "rubber ruler". What happens when congress decides they are taxing Estates too much? I'd say the person at the lowest income level feels the pinch, not the guy at the top of the food chain.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, do you really have any idea how much in food stamps you get for, say, a single mother and two kids?

It's not enough to feed yourselves, I promise....less than $300 a month...AND while it doesn't pay to go to work for minimum wage with two pre-school age children, your benefits will start going down after three months if you don't show proof that you are looking for a job.

Around here, it's reasonably cheap to live, so we'll take an example from real life: one of my best friends.

She has two small children, she's separated, so there's no child support order yet, but fortunately, her husband isn't a complete asshole, and he helps her out, or she wouldn't make it. Let's just say she took a min. wage job, just for the sake of argument.

If she works 40 hours a week, she'll bring home something around $700 a month.

Her trailer, utilities (water, electric) included is $425 a month, and it's not a nice one, believe me, but it's the best she can do.

That leaves her $275 a month.

Childcare is around $125/week here for two kids....X 4.25 weeks a month, that makes her childcare bill $531.25/mo.

Explain to me, please, how this single mother will even be able to pay to get to work, much less take care of her children, even with gov't benefits.

You could describe an infinite number of circumstances in which it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make ends meet. Do you expect me to deny it? I thought the purpose of this discussion was to discuss the best way to fix the problem, not to describe the all the possible forms of the problem.

Once again, someone has ignored and/or refused to engage the serious unintended consequences of minimum wage laws that I raised, and stated the obvious point that it is hard to get by on a limited income. What does that accomplish?

Question: If people ignore or refuse to engage my arguments, what point is there to me me saying anything here? Once again, it's not like this thread is loaded down with free marketeers piling up thousands of words. The least people could do is take a minute to read and consider the points of one person in that camp before challenging that person.

I will say to you what I said to Lucky: I have explained some of the reasons why the minimum wage has serious unintended consequences, how it is not only an extremely inefficient way help its intended beneficiaries, but in the short and long term actually can harm them. I have expressed a willingness to work together to implement ways to really accomplish the goal we all seek - helping people work their way up from the bottom - without creating these kinds of problems. Let's be smart about this, not dumb. Let's really help, not just pretend to help. Let's do things that work, not just posture and behave like politicians. It is possible to be effective rather than dumb, it is a choice we can make. Which will you choose?

 

[cloudy]

You could describe an infinite number of circumstances in which it is extremely difficult if not impossible to make ends meet. Do you expect me to deny it? I thought the purpose of this discussion was to discuss the best way to fix the problem, not to describe the all the possible forms of the problem.


Once again, someone has ignored and/or refused to engage the serious unintended consequences of minimum wage laws that I raised, and stated the obvious point that it is hard to get by on a limited income. What does that accomplish?

Question: If people ignore or refuse to engage my arguments, what point is there to me me saying anything here? Once again, it's not like this thread is loaded down with free marketeers piling up thousands of words. The least people could do is take a minute to read and consider the points of one person in that camp before challenging that person.

I will say to you what I said to Lucky: I have explained some of the reasons why the minimum wage has serious unintended consequences, how it is not only an extremely inefficient way help its intended beneficiaries, but in the short and long term actually can harm them. I have expressed a willingness to work together to implement ways to really accomplish the goal we all seek - helping people work their way up from the bottom - without creating these kinds of problems. Let's be smart about this, not dumb. Let's really help, not just pretend to help. Let's do things that work, not just posture and behave like politicians. It is possible to be effective rather than dumb, it is a choice we can make. Which will you choose?

I am engaging the argument.

You seem to be touting gov't programs as some sort of panacea to "fix" the problems that lower wage earners face. I'm telling you it ain't so. They flat out don't fix the problems like you seem to think they do.

I'm all for fixing it, including paying people a decent wage.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I'd say the person at the lowest income level feels the pinch, not the guy at the top of the food chain.

Actually, it's the middle class that feels the greatest pinch. The middle class, and the upper middle that ends up having ALL of its legitimate tax deductions for mortgage interest and health care costs disallowed via the Alternate Minimum Tax, that end up paying taxes through the nose and supporting the whole damn system.

 

[nyte_byrd]

I think that to have an accurate opinion, you may have to think from a state level, not just a federal one.
To the person who indicated that all a minimum wage family has to do is get on food stamps/welfare/medicaid to make ends meet, you have to keep in mind that in some states most welfare benefits are *temporary* and you will get kicked off of it after a certain time period regardless of whether your income has improved any or not. I know it isn't supposed to be like that, but in Indiana, for example, the only aid you can get after their allotted period of time is Medicaid and WIC (which gives you milk, cereal, juice, etc.), and that's ONLY if you're pregnant or have little ones at home. They can probably make it. BUT where does that leave people who work full time, didn't feel like spitting out a herd of kids in order to claim benefits, and thus can't afford to have any medical care or a healthy meal? Figure that one out, and we'll all agree that nobody needs to make more money. A neighbor just told me that Deleware has similar laws pertaining to their recipients (anyone from DE that can verify this?)

To the folks who seem to think that a hike in minimum wage will hurt business owners... what kind of business owners? I run a business, and can't imagine what sort of business is doing so badly that they can't stay afloat long enough to wait until the end of the year, when tax time makes their business expenses all even out. Even if you set the moral issues aside (and those should come first) it's just plain ignorant for any company owner not to pay decent wages *without* having to be told to. Happy healthy employees will work harder for you (thus increasing busines production and income), so paying them well is a good investment. It's very expensive where we live ("dirt cheap" rent is around $1100 a month) so arguing over such a small amount is unheard of. My own employees are worth more than that to my company, so I couldn't care less if they raise the min. wage; I pay more anyway.
On a second train of thought, if you go to the U.S. Department of Labor website (www.dol.gov/esa/), you will see that each state can set a minimum wage above the Federal's $5.15 standard. As of March 1, 2006 the minimum wage in Florida is $6.40, which is a fair amount above minimum. My sister is a *small* business owner just starting out in Florida, and she says noboby down there (employers or employees) seems to be complaining.

Not trying to start a war, but there's more than one facet to every situation. That's just my "2 cents", and that's probably exactly what it's worth <grin>

 

[artisticbiguy]

I think it's a cheap political trick intended to take the steam out of a campaign issue.

If politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle) had any shred of integrity, the issues would be debated and voted upon separately -- on their individual merits.

I agree with Imp here!

I think both measures should happen, actually, but should not be tied to one another. Being someone who is on that "uncomfortable edge" of being just within the estate tax limbo (will I have to pay, won't I?), I think it is horrible that the property and earnings my parents accumulated over 50+ years of hard work and investment can be gacked again by the government upon their deaths. It's already BEEN taxed... the earnings, everything, when they made it the first time. I think it is criminal to say "oh, now that you've died, we get it again". So many family businesses have collapsed because the kids inherited it upon the parent/founder's death and the government went "ok, anti up".

Also, the minimum wage needs to go up as no one can live here in the US on $10,000 annual income (or there abouts). Sure, it can be done... barely, in some southern states (where I live), but go to a northern state or the west coast, and it is laughable. I couldn't live on MY salary on the west coast, and I make a significant more than min-wage.