"The House last night voted to boost the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade while also permanently slashing the estate tax, a coupling that GOP leaders calculated might garner enough Senate support to become law."
The problem however:
"But the maneuvering by House and Senate GOP leaders to package the measures over the objection of some Senate chairmen caused severely bruised feelings. Lawmakers from both parties said last night that the legislation could easily collapse in the Senate, underscoring Democratic contentions that Congress has become dysfunctional."
The Democrats aren't exactly happy with the coupling of this measure to raise the minimum wage with the estate tax cut that would, in the words of the WaPo only benefit "the country's richest families".
Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) even said:
"This is beyond cynical. This is disgraceful."
Harry Reid (D-NV) added:
"Republicans have made perfectly clear who they stand with and who they are willing to fight for: the privileged few."
Republican Representative Zach Wamp (TN) said he knows why the Democrats are mad:
"I know why you're mad. You've seen us really outfox you"
From a Republican point of view this could actually be a smart move. They never made a secret out of their wish to abolish the estate tax as much as possible. On the other hand, one could argue that the estate tax measure alone (estates worth $5 million -- or $10 million for a married couple -- would be exempted from taxation) would have a difficult time being accepted and it would just about completely confirm what Democrats are saying for years and years (and repeat it this time): that Republicans are only interested in serving rich Americans.
This way, however, the bill might stand a better chance of passing and it would, to a degree, give the Republicans a chance to defend themselves against accusations like that.
Joe Gandelman wrote a magnificent post about it at The Moderate Voice.
He writes:
"No one can accuse the GOP of not staying "on message." And the message they are sending to many Americans — including those who are NOT Democrats — is that they won't do something for working Americans unless they can hold a gun to legislators' heads making them pass something that will give a tax break to wealthy supporters and/or contributors. [...] It truly sounds as if the GOP is now hopelessly inflicted with a political hubris and could be fatal come November. How many workers who are cynical about whether the GOP really cares about them will want to vote for a GOPer who voted for an increase in the minimum wage that was shoved through under threat of defeat unless an inheritance tax break was grafted onto it?"
To a degree, I agree with Joe's view (and that of certain Democrats), namely that it is extremely cynical that the only way with Republicans ruling every branch of the Federal government to increase the minimum wage is to couple it to something that will only make the rich richer. On the other hand one could also ask whether it is truly that important. Isn't it about results? If the goal of many moderates and the Democratic party is to raise the minimum wage, does it really matter that it must be coupled to measure described above? In the end, one could say, isn't it strictly about results? Raising the minimum wage is an important issue to many Democrats. They could try to make it look like a victory for them if they play their cards right. More, does the person who is dependent on the minimum wage for years already, working 50 hours per week, just to be able to pay for his or her home and to take care of his or her family, does such a person really care that his raise is coupled to a something that only benefits the rich? Or will people like that simply be satisfied because - at long last - their situation will be improved?
I must admit that I am inclined to think that, in the end, this might prove to be a 'win-win' situation: both the people who currently work for the federal minimum wage and the ultra-rich will benefit from it. I doubt whether any of those groups really cares about the benefits for the others, as long as they themselves benefit from it as well.
On the other hand, maybe I'm just a cynic.
Subscribe
Its been nearly a week since this manuever was announced and I still am shaking my head.
In a nutshell, the estate tax is currently written to exempt the first several million in inheritances. There have been moves to raise that exemption to 8 million but these moves have been thwarted by the GOP who want the tax completly repealed.
It has been shown that the emphasis for the push to abolish the tax is being provided by 18 families who have a combined net worth in the 70-80 BILLION dollar range.
To couple the GREED of these families to the plight of people working for 5$ an hour is the ultimate perversion of process.
While I can not imagine what it must be like to live with tens of billions of dollars, neither can I imagine what it must be like to try to live while working for 5$ an hour.
The government loves to dilute data by adjusting it in various ways.
They tell us that gasoling is still historicaly inexpensive by adjusting it for inflation and fuel efficiency.
Here is a simple adjustment for you to digest.
For my first job I worked at the minimum wage of $3.35/Hr pumping gas that at the time cost 40 cents a gallon. I could buy 8 1/2 gallons of gas for an hour of minimum wage work.
Today a gallon of gas costs $3.
To create an equal lifestyle MINIMUM WAGE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED TO 25.50$/Hr.
I doubt that will happen but is 7$ asking for anything.
Business owners are telling you they cant afford it, raising the wage will hurt them.
These are the same people who love to espouse free markets as the solution to everything.
Those same free markets say this.
The small business owners who cant see to raise their workers wages above 5$/hr should find another line of work. If the only way they can profit in business is if society provide them with slaves, then they should close their doors now. Slavery was abolished and shouldnt be tolerated again today. So says the free market.
Some off the cuff observations:
1. Is it right to have a tax that only affects 18 families? or 100, or 1,000 any small fraction of the polity?
2. Seems like it is the worst type of democracy to vote to raise the other guys taxes. A risk to any democracy is the ability of the majority to vote itself benefits and pass the bill along to someone else. Not always wrong but a potential for disaster.
3. Is it not a bit hypocritical to complain about partisanship and then when a compromise that is worked out that gives to very different fundamental views enough to move forward on change we complain?
4. Perhaps some would applaud the fact that we are moving a % of the population to a more carbon-nuetral lifestyle. Beyond that nomad you are enough of a political and economics junkie to know the flaws in your little example, but it was humorous.
5. Equating minimum wage workers to slaves is absurd and disdainful of those who have suffered slavery. Metaphors are all well and good but that is a bit much.
vry,
RET
Rich:
You write "Equating minimum wage workers to slaves is absurd and disdainful of those who have suffered slavery."
Do you personaly know many who have been slaves? As an aside I have heard this satirical analogy.
Slaves in the 1800s were actualy better off than minimum wage workers are today. Why? Todays worker must pay to feed, clothe and house themselves. If you can figure a way to do that if your full time job pays you 160$ a week, power to you.
Tou also write:"Is it right to have a tax that only affects 18 families?"
I find it hard to imagine your concern for any minority. That said, I ask you this. In a representative government is it right for those representatives to ignore the welfare of hundreds of millions while catering to 18? How is that representative.
Also your misrepresentation is telling. Noone has proposed raising a tax on anyone. However a very select very few choose to whine because theirs is not being lowered quickly enough.
As another question, in a capitalist society where money is power, is it right for those that won the lottery of life and find themselves billionaires as a sole function of their fortunate placement at birth to use that wealth to influence public policy to their own advantage? Wouldnt you think they could find a better use for it?
Nomad,
1. I do not have to know someone who has been a slave in order to understand it. Slavery is about freedom, even the 'house slaves' who might have been living better than the average free american was still a slave.
2. Employers offer to hire, free people agree to work for the wages. Yes I understand all the nuances. Working at minimum wage is not slavery, my first job was at minimum wage, I was not a slave.
3. I am very concerned about minority rights, in fact it is one of the beauties of our particular constitutional-lib-democracy that we have safeguards against the tyrany of the majority.
4. People can pursue virutally any policy they want, it is called democracy. Some fine print to virtually. If a person that receives an inheretance once to give it away, fine. If they want to live a life of debauchery fine, if they want to use it to promote leftist causes is fine, yep its ok by me and should be in a free society. It is not my role to tell them what to do though, YES there are better ways to use ones prosperity within my values.
5. I did not mention raising a tax only the existence of a tax whethr it is new, old, whatever.
6. An economic policy discourse on the minimum wage entails understanding its impact on the economy, how many folks work at it, how many are transient versus heads of households, etc. A pragmatic centrist position is understand all of this and develop an optimal policy. I support a minimum wage developed from centrist pragmatism. The pure traditional-conservative position of no minimum wage ignores some important realities that we as a society can choose to ameliorate.
vry,
RET
Rich;
I was tempted to abstain from comment on your latest but the urge was too irresistable :)
Point by point ...
#6) .. Hmm ..I suppose we could commision a study but it seems as though the existing forces would tend to yield a study that is unending. From personal experiences in the deep south I can tell you this much. When you look for generic work and you are lucky enough to get a nibble, you neednt ask what the job pays. The pay rate is understood. Outside of those experiences I have found that numerous other states have set state minimum wages and thus would be uneffected by federal heel dragging.
#5)You did mention raising the tax, thus my comment. You said "the worst type of democracy (is) to vote to raise the other guys taxes."
#4) .. Debauchery is not fine but I suppose it could be tolerated if it didnt include using that power in a coercive manner.
#3) I am glad you feel strongly about supporting minorities. I assume then that you have no issue with the gay rights movement?
#2) Free people only work at the given minimum wage in agreements that are coerced. The agreement is analogous to the old "offer you cant refuse". "You either work for fish heads or go without work" is not a choice you would pose to a truly free person.
1) I am glad you also worked for minimum wage so that we can at least say we shared a common experience. At the time I spoke of such a job led to extreme hardship but was endurable to a degree. I lived out of my car and exclusivly ate fish and cocanuts? You?
And that was 25 years ago. The wage has scantly improved since unlike the cost of living.
Slavery evoked the issue of freedom yes. But it also invokes the issue of human dignity. There is little dignity afforded those who suffer abstract poverty.
Ah well ... I best get my a** to work before I wind up again working for minimum wage. Enjoy the day.
Well its a slow day so what the heck let's go down some rat holes.
Not really relevant to the analysis of whether the wage-estate legislation was a good compromise or not but a few quick comments:
1. Min wage times: yeah was tough but no one owed me more. A lot of mac & cheese (not the name brand stuff) and sometimes couldn't afford the milk that goes in the mix, water is a very poor substitue.
2. Read again, in relation to the estate tax I said "Is it right to have a tax", have not implement, not raise, have the tax. The comment about voting for a tax was in a paragrpah about tax policy in general. Using separate paragraphs for seperate ideas. Obviously the issue currently with the federal estate tax is its permanent abolishment not its establisment or increasing it.
3. Gay rights? Thought the discussion here was about estate tax and minimum wages? But yes the the concept about the blessings of constitutional-liberal-democracy applies to sexual orientation too. So yes if a gay billionaire wants to leave his estate to his lifepartner or as applicable by jurisdiction husband then you bet the government should not tax the transaction.
vry,
RET
Rich;
Lol ... You were wondering how our chat drifted from the topic of estate taxes on to gay rights?
I am still laughing.
I have been chuckling for hours.
I was reminded of having tuned in to watch that hatefest of a RNC a few years back and getting to pick up on a few new and rarely used words.
One in particular that has been getting a lot of use lately is the word DISINGENUOUS.
Never has a word been so timely as DISINGENUOUS is in politics today.
So when I read your attack on the concept of leaving the estate tax on the books, how you were attempting to characterize the small clan of Billionaires who would benifit from the proposal to repeal it, as if those Billionaires were in reality a long suffering and persecuted minority ... :)
well naturaly I thought (while echoing the word disingenuous in my mind) of the latest persecuted minority, the gays in their quest for equal rights. You dodged the question by the way, as a sympathiser with the plights of minorities you have no problem with gay marriage then?
Anyhow, of course you didnt get it so I hope this cleared things up.
Hope you wont be challenging me to a duel or anything like that.
Two heads working in concert to combine issues that have nothing to do with each other is legislative manipulation... I consider it treason to combine issues like border walls and guest workers, like off-shore and Alaska drilling to drill in the Southwest desert... for it is this form of treason that will be a major downfall for both parties in the face of Independents and radical leftwing Democrats... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Nomad,
Glad our discussion could bring some sunshine into an otherwise dull and dreary day.
Again, reading closely is helpful. I did refer to the number of people affected by the estate tax as a minority, and mathematically they are a minority. I did not assert anything about their suffering. I only brought up the aspect of targeting such a limited group for a tax.
There is a dynamic tension between majority rule and minorities in a democracy. Ultimately the majority wins because they can amend the constitution etc. However the wonderful aspect of our approach is an above average set of protections for minorities and the ultimate minority the individual.
My position is from one equity point of view it is one arguement against the estate tax that what remains of it applies to only a small segement of the population. It does not matter that the particular segement is incredibly wealthy or not.
OK, back to gay rights and the particular issue of marriage. First without a doubt constitutional rights apply to all citizens regardless of what priveleged or non-privelged group they belong too.
The majority does get to set the laws which includes the definition of marriage which is also a legal institution, read the discussion in the marriage thread. In the same way ultimately millions of americans through congress can impose a tax on a very small group of people. In both cases public debate, manuevring , lobbying takes place.
In terms of gay-marriage I fall into the wishy washy middle of saying let's do the civil union thing with all but the name. But for the very reason of creating a legally equivalent civil union is a recognition that symbolism is importatant I understand why folks on the one side say ok civil union but you can't call it a marriage and some on the other say just the legal rights are not enough by witholding the word their is a symbolic diminishment.
Anyhow, interesting discussion though from the list, minimimum wage, estate tax and gay marriage none are likely to be 08 presidential key issues.
On the original thread I am happy about the comprimse legislation as it will produce two positive outcomes and for folks that like one without the other its still a pragmatic way to move legislation forward.
vry,
RET
Rich;
You actually liked the idea?
Hmm .. My view is much closer to Earl's. Legislation should be voted up or down one at a time based on the merits of the individual proposal. This GOP attempt is DISINGENUOUS at best and appears as a thinly veiled attempt of political posturing in the hope of gaining some treasured political advantage in the upcoming election.
They (GOP) must be theorizing that by signaling a willingness to sell out their small business backers by pushing crumbs to the needy, that they will trigger decent by the Dems who will reject it because its overall effect is simply to appease the super rich.
Thus, in the fall the GOP can campaign on the theme "democrats reject minimum wage increase".
This is laughable becaue in the end noone is paying any attention to the fact that all this manuevering will further break an already busted budget.
To be honest the current estate tax is discriminatory against a few. Originaly it made more sense before they started exempting away the obligations of increasing amounts of people to contribute to the society they benifit from. It should have been left alone to begin with ... no million exemption, 2,5,8 ... a windfall is a winfall and should be taxed.
Congress has to quit gaming and think of the country for a change.
This was/is no win legislation for anyone accept Republican fundraising; more from millionaires than any gain from billionaires.
From prior comments you may know that I regard social engineering through taxation with contempt; but since we are in it up to our assets this issue (estate tax)has a place.
The exemption level of this legislation is a hugh compromise that will mean very little to billionaire estates and I think it is a fair one for them. The victim may well be the nonprofits (NPOs)that get funds in the estates of those petty millionaires (of which there are tens of 1000s). Billionaires very often have their estates prepared for tax shelter and with these exemption levels they will continue to do so; they just won't be turn tax free cash accounts to heirs.
If this legislation were a real attempt to address estate tax, it would tackle the very difficult (politically) issue of protecting private held buisness form involuntary liquidation upon the death of an owner or partner.
Bill"for what we are together"
Abolish it Completely.
Taxes on Previously Taxed Money is Plain Wrong.
I'm sick of hearing you whiners go on and on about "them and there money".
Work for it Goddammit.
BTW - I am not a Filthy Rich Billionaire, I just want to be.
In the end, I don't think the combined measure is a win-win for one reason. Yes, the minimum wage went up - slowly, over several years, and still not that much. But what programs do you think legislators are going to look to cut when the $750 billion in lost revenues from the estate tax cut shows up on the balance sheet? Social programs that help the working poor most likely - food stamps, school breakfast, education funding, mass transit, etc. So in the end, the working class has more cash but less assistance. Seems to me a washout policy. Still, it's foxy politics because the machinations are irrelevant to your average voter.
The sick part is thinking that an estate is previously taxed money any more that any money transfered from one owner to another. The new owner pays their own income tax regardless. Even now there is a lifetime cap on how much a living parent can give a living dependent (a few hundred thousand) and with this exemption for estates that becomes upto $10 million for deceased parents.
Some people have a problem grasping the fact that nothing in this world is "yours" when your dead. Beside I think God is more amiable to blessing and nobody's money has anything to do with it.
Bill"for what we are together"
Still, it's foxy politics because the machinations are irrelevant to your average voter.
Exactly. To me - this sounds cold - this isn't as much about whether or not the law is a good one, it's about how the public will view it.
People donate large sums of money to non profit organizations and it's not taxed, but some here are proposing that money left to a person's family should be tazxed as normal income. That's just not fair.
If you're going to tax everything as income, then tax EVERYTHING as income, including donations to the Unity08 non profit. Therefore I propose that the Founder's Council immediately transfer 1/3 of all startup funds and subsequent donations to the IRS.
Don't want to do that? Fine, but you'll be viewed as hypocrtites if you insist on keeping the Death Tax.
Gifts to family member ABOVE THE CAPS have been taxed as income for many years when managed lawfully, and it is precisely as fair as any income tax. Tax Reform as a topic is discussed at length in the Shoutbox...check it out.
Bill"for what we are together"
As a tax issue this should be a topic is the shoutbox. Bring it up there for a general discussion.
NPO's have special spending rules determined to be in the public interest and estate heirs do not. That is "social engineering" of one type and tax free estates is "social engineering" of another type. I don't WANT either. Again, see discussions under Tax Reform, etc.
Bill"for what we are together"
1. Bizzare thinking talking about estate tax and related issues on a thread about the estate tax legistlation not be 'on-topic'
2. Also interesting that 'tax free estates' is social engineering but 'taxing estates' is not.
Clearly from a traditional progressive / leftist view the purpose of the estate tax is NOT primarily revenue generation but as a force against the accumulation of wealth within families.
The flip-side of this is of course why some want no estate tax, the desire to allow the state of nature that exists without government imposing its coercive force for family farms, businesses etc to stay within a family.
In fact this second aspect is why the left leaning Black Congressional Caucus is more and more favoring repeal with the massive increase of minority owned small and medium sized businesses in recent history.
Taxation is a necessary evil in order to generate revenue to provide the governmental services we choose through our representatives to provide. But never loose site of the fact that we are using the coercive power of the state to take and that power should be used sparingly and in as in an equitable manner as possible (okay equity is its own can of worms based on your a priori assumptions).
Yes, we have over time taxed more and more transactions as our desire for revenue has grown but that does not mean we have to tax everything.
Even if you have no ethical qualms about an estate tax the pragmatic center political position has to take into account that supporting estate taxes that touch the even the upper middle class are very unpopular.
vry,
RET
All comments here have been relatively on-topic. If anything is seriously off-target, we do move posts. You're always welcome to open an expanded discussion on any related subjects in the Shoutbox.
OK, I took this thread to be about the legislation and the blog article. I have addressed RET specifically on the estate tax on unity08.com/node/171.
I'm think about a new topic on NPOs.
Bill"for what we are together"