To Paris With Love: Multi-Millionaire Heirs Get 183 Years of Minimum Wage Income
To Paris With Love: Multi-Millionaire Heirs Get 183 Years of Minimum Wage Income
House conservatives passed a bill last week that combined a minimum wage hike with a dramatic cut to the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax).
By my calculations, the minimum wage hike will increase the incomes of full-time, minimum wage workers by $84 a week, or about $4,368 a year. This would bring their income up to just over $15,000 a year (assuming 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year.)
By contrast, the heirs of multimillionaires would receive substantially more by way of benefits. Consider the heirs who stand to receive a $10 million fortune through married parents. Under the new proposed law they would receive a tax break of as much as $2.76 million (compared with the 2006 estate tax law.)
Put another way, the heirs of the $10 million estate would get a tax break worth as much as 183 years of the income of a full-time minimum wage earner.
– John Irons, Director of Tax and Budget Policy
Cross-posted at BudgetBlog. Check out BudgetBlog every day for real-time analysis and commentary on the federal budget.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
52 Responses to “To Paris With Love: Multi-Millionaire Heirs Get 183 Years of Minimum Wage Income”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good for her.
Our elected Representatives have MUCH MORE in common with the Hilton\’s than they do the Jones\’s. As usual, they only look after their own.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:16 pmRepubican Pukes supporting the rich…
July 31st, 2006 at 12:21 pmsome things never change.
If Paris Hilton is the new Betty Crocker,
I need to get a new recipe book.
Let’s see; Eggs Benedict Arnold
Well now the trolls here, that always say that the working poor class should just work harder to make their lives better, have some statistics to use for their argument. All they have to do is work for about 183 years to get to a level as someone like Paris who was born with riches. I guess the US isn’t becoming and aristocracy after all.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:22 pmRepubican Pukes supporting the rich…
July 31st, 2006 at 12:23 pmsome things never change.
If Paris Hilton is the new Betty Crocker,
I need to get a new recipe book.
Let’s see; Eggs Benedict Arnold.
Snortable Oatmeal, Toasted Brains,
Yuk! Just lost my appetite.
ummm, processed dairy, processed meats, GMO veggies and fruits…..
July 31st, 2006 at 12:24 pmPut it another way, at 4% interest, the interest from the tax break is enogh to support 7 people on mininum wage. And every year 7 more people can be hired with the interest on the new year’s tax break.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:26 pmHow much of the minimum wage increase (and everyone else’s income) will be eaten up by making up for the loss of “Paris Hilton’s” tax revenue?
July 31st, 2006 at 12:30 pmThe reason is when Bush gets out of office the taxpayer will have to pay for what the Bush Administration stole. Now do the math, rich will pay less the one half of a penny while the rest of working American will get the tax hike. We’re talking about a loss of trillions of dollars for the US Treasury. White Americans allowed Bush to remain President for 5 years the US Treasury was robbed, and in order to stand the government will have to raise the taxes high. This bill gives a buffer to the rich as they wont be hurt in anyway by the huge tax increase. Oh yes when that happen in 2007 the GOP will say Bill Clinton did it, and the Dems/Indep. were the ones to raise taxes. As for the Republicans well those that stole large sums of money will look and say you didn’t vote Republican so look what happen if you had the GOP would have just kept increasing the debt until it reached 100 trillion dollars then let some other party take over and take the blame.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pmParis Hilton insisted last week she is carrying on the legacy of legendary blondes like Marilyn Monroe and has declared herself this decade’s “iconic blonde.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but judging by her photos, she’s gonna need bigger tits if she wants to fill Marilyn’s bra. Of course, that’s just my elementary opinion.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pmYou ignorant liberals just don’t get it!! The Bush Administration, in its wisdom, has been passing on the income of this generation to the NEXT generation because it “fully understands” that the cost of its war and domestic policies will also be passed on to the NEXT generation. Fair and balanced!
July 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pmOff topic……Anyone see condi speaking this morning? Either she has been dipping into the Michael Jackson bleach brine or something has her scared shitless. She was white as a sheet and a tad shakey.I wonder what exactly rattles the soul of the souless?
July 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm(aka the Paris Hilton Tax). - - That’s hot.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:50 pm(ok, someone had to say it eventually.)
#11, the Israelis probably showed and played her a few tapes in which she is the star,then told her to go away.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pmHere we go again giving tax breaks to the rich. I think every time the congress gives themselves a raise the min. wage should go up as well.
July 31st, 2006 at 12:54 pmCharlie Rangel explained why this happened on the house floor:
“[The Republicans] want this bceause if you want campaign contributions, you go where the money is”
Does Jack Abramoff have a phone in his cell ???
July 31st, 2006 at 1:05 pmConservatives are all about earning your dues in society. Coincidentally, liberals think the same way. Liberals and progressives are wise enough to acknowledge that all people aren’t born equal, and some have a difficult time advancing due to money constraints. So, raises in minimum wage makes sense, in order to move a poor family in the direction of gaining some establishment and stability in their lineage.
A conservative will have to tell me how exactly a kid of a rich person diserves to inherit their praents’ money, every last cent, completely untaxed. Then tell me how their kids will diserve their grandparents’ money, because this stuff doesn’t go away after one generation. How spoiled do we want Paris Hilton’s kids to be? Ugh.
Three or four generations from now, our great great grandchildren would curse us for allowing these economic royalists to win this fight; and not to forget our great great grandparents that wisely won this fight before.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:09 pm[…] At 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, the House of Representatives passed a bill that links a $2 increase in the minimum wage to a dramatic cut of the estate tax for millionaires. […]
July 31st, 2006 at 1:21 pmIsn’t it true that the RECIPIENTS of estates do not pay income tax on their windfalls? Why not simply make an end run around the estate tax issue by demanding that inheritance be treated like gambling winnings or other strokes of luck, and taxed accordingly? Why should heirs to fortunes be treated differently than winners of fortunes?
July 31st, 2006 at 1:24 pm18) Intersesting perspective. They got lucky in the lottery of birth, as it were. I like it.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:38 pmIn my mind, overall the thing is worth it. I care less about the inheritance thing than I do an increase in minimum wage.
Politically speaking, it seems pretty clear to everyone that the Democrats were for the minimum wage and the Republicans were for the inheritance boost (and, looking at a couple quotes, are outright bragging about poisoning minimum wage). When you think about the people who are passionate about the inheritance tax (talking about voters, not politicians) and people who are passionate about poverty and minimum wage, advantage to the Democrats.
And, to me, it wouldn’t be incredibly difficult, in the future, given a shift in political power, to add on inheritance taxes. I’m also of the view that most people who inherit excessive wealth on the whole tend to be unable to hold on to that wealth.
July 31st, 2006 at 1:55 pm#16, I’m not a conservative, and I don’t have 10M dollars, but if I earned (whether through work, investments, whatever legal means) that money and it was taxed when I earned it, why is it acceptable to have it taxed again just because I died and left it to somebody? Isn’t it kind of like a penaltly for being wealthy?
July 31st, 2006 at 2:03 pmNot really Mikey, the person who earned the money is not being taxed. The person who is recieving the money is being taxed. They are recieving an income, similar to say winning big at a casino, or winning the lotto. The estate tax is not a tax on the person who is passing the money along. It is a tax on the person inheriting the money, as income. We are constantly taxed on our income, why should inheretince be left out? Another part the Republicans tend to leave out, is the first 2 million is exempt from the Tax.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:07 pm#21
July 31st, 2006 at 2:13 pmIt is not being taxed again. It is considered to be wages earned by the person receiving it. Then it is taxed for that person. If it weren’t that way then I could argue that if I owned a construction company and my son worked for me. My company(me) makes the money that I pay my employee(my son) with. Then he shouldn’t have to pay taxes on that income.
#22, I see what you’re saying Krazny. But I guess it’s hard for me to think of it as “income” if it was part of my family’s possessions or something they worked hard to earn. To me, the lottery or gambling is a different kind of income.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:25 pmRepublican leaders shrug off the “do-nothing” charge. “You get used to hearing that nonsense,” said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). As for beating the 1948 Congress’s record for lethargy, he joked, “Most Americans will be pretty happy with that.”
Amazing that came out of his mouth. Pitiful leadership in this country.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:25 pm#16
“A conservative will have to tell me how exactly a kid of a rich person diserves to inherit their praents’ money”
They don’t deserve it, but it’s not up to you or I to make that determination.
July 31st, 2006 at 2:34 pmWhat do Paris Hilton, W & Zach Swamp have in common?
July 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pmCOCAINE! (and very confused minds.)
You’d think with all that money the gal could afford to buy some decent clothes… that has to be the UGLIEST dress I have ever seen!
July 31st, 2006 at 2:47 pmAnd what’s inside is just plain scary.
They don’t deserve it, but it’s not up to you or I to make that determination.
Comment by Tracy
Naw, it’s not up to the people. It up to corporate interest and the uber-rich, right?
July 31st, 2006 at 2:58 pmAll of this favoring of the filthy rich, by the GOP, gives me a massive headache > lol.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:04 pm#28
July 31st, 2006 at 3:12 pmSKdeA,
I kind of like that dress. It sort of has an air of whimsical snobbery and summery idiocy to it. But then I am always a sucker for that.
The rich can pay their fair share or a little extra. With all their lawyers, they’re using every conceivable Hummer loophole anyway.
Besides, double, triple taxation is the way things get done around here. Tolls, gas tax, sales tax on car each time it’s sold, licenses, etc.
Who said taxes were fair ?
July 31st, 2006 at 3:35 pmthat has to be the UGLIEST dress I have ever seen!
And what’s inside is just plain scary.
Comment by SKdeA
Oh good, I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that’s a hideous dress. And the think inside, too.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:44 pm26) Capital is a social medium for trade. It does not belong to a family. This is capitalism, not feudalism. It’s perfectly legitimate to seek as much wealth as you can, but that’s money you earned, and you alone.
Given that American society is a land of laws and not a land of men, the laws that the democratic body believes will be best for our society’s future are what we will follow.
So when there’s situations where there’s “up in the air” choices to make, the popular body, through its representatives, will determine what kind of decision will be made. And in the case of estates worth more than two million dollars, we decided to avoid the risk of economic royalty pushing our society into a corner and went about getting that social capital back into the hands of the people, so we can do stuff like build roads and educate the least among us and get medicine to the elderly and the infirm.
Sadly, conservatives have manipulated the democratic body into believing that what’s best for the ultra-rich is what’s best for the rest of us, so the rich kids may one day have a legitmate claim on “family moneys” based on law and not the opinions of men. They won’t have to earn their money like the rest of us; they’ll be getting what they don’t diserve. After this is allowed for enough generations, America will look less like America and more like a modern version of old European kingdoms.
Unless of course we see some massive turnaround in the coming decades….
July 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pmAnd the [thing] inside, too.
Geez…
July 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pmWell if given a choice between a date with Paris Hilton, or Ann Coulter, I would go out with Hilton hands down, but I bet she has helium in her cranium, so the date with her would be boring! Going out with Ann, listening to her dirty mouth, would cause me to fall asleep, or pass out in disgust > lol.
July 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm#36
July 31st, 2006 at 3:56 pmI agree with your choice. There is a video to prove what Paris actually has, but you don’t know what you might get from the suprise package down in the nether regions of mAnn Coulter.
I guess given the choice, I would go with Paris too. Truth be told, I tend to like women, not skinny things that could pass for a 12 year old boy.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:16 pm****NOTE to Leftists**** –Despite what the Politburo told you, IT AIN’T YOUR MONEY. How about doing away with pork, waste, graft and other forms of corruption?
July 31st, 2006 at 4:31 pmHow about doing away with pork, waste, graft and other forms of corruption?
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Did you ask this of your conservative government in power right now? Have they done anything about these concerns you have? Feeling a little betrayed?
July 31st, 2006 at 4:37 pmWe have a politburo ? Maybe they can do something about that Republican-controlled pork, waste, graft and other forms of corruption.
Geez, you’re slippin’ MA. ;]
July 31st, 2006 at 4:55 pmHow about doing away with pork, waste, graft and other forms of corruption?
Comment by mighty aphrodite — July 31, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
LOL, have you read animal farm MA? I know it may seem a little leftist too you, but the end of the book, and I hope I am not giving anything away here. The end of the book, the pigs who replaced the humans, look exactly like the humans. The moral of the story being, no matter what somone says, they typically end up exactly like those they replace. Witness the republicans, who seem to enjoy pork, campaign contributions, and expensive gifts just as much as the dems.
We could also cut pork by say not funding the bilions needed in Iraq I suppose. I don’t know why you would want to hurt the troops that way, but it is up to you.
July 31st, 2006 at 4:56 pm39) How about doing away with pork, waste, graft and other forms of corruption?
I have no problem with that.
Given that Republican Dennis Hastert is the most recent and biggest example of this. And if we want to talk about pork, how about bridges to nowhere that got put into transportation bills by a Republican I can’t recall.
Of course, this is a bi-partisan problem. I see no problem in making these occurances impossible. But we have a democratic body that simple isn’t watching, and a media that knows what they want to watch, so we won’t see change any time soon.
I don’t exactly see how your statements have any coherant path of logic. What does “it aint your money” have to do with wasteful government?
The argument here is that this isn’t a feudalist society, and we don’t allow special wonderful treatment in society for families who has an increadibly rich individual or two in it, because we’ve recognized through the wisdom of history that this can only lead to bad times for the rest of us.
If you have a lot of wealth, mighty aphrodite, and you would like your kids to know the same wealth, best start learning them some money management skills, getting them high quality education, so they can find their own wealth. I don’t understand why you’d prevent them from finding their own American dream, instead of leaching off of yours. Why would you want to deny them the satisfaction of knowing a life of hard work and the satisfaction of personal gain instead of the lethargic effects of instant, born-into-wealth lifestyle.
I mean, you and your type are all about hard work, right? (Except for families who decide they want to take their forefathers’ wealth and run with it, of course. The rules change for them, as far as conservatives are concerned.)
July 31st, 2006 at 4:57 pmHmmm, lets see, the first 2 million is exempt, that means if I have 4 kids, at the very least they will inherit $500,000 a piece. That does not include what is left over the 2 million mark. Frankly if your kids can’t survive on thier education, and a $500,000+ inheritance, maybe you shouldn’t be breeding.
July 31st, 2006 at 5:08 pmKrazny - Shock of shocks, but NEITHER party has the moral high ground when it comes to PORK, waste, contributions etc. I wish we could do away with the party “apparatchik” but…. Lefty’s slam corporate big shots….Righty’s slam union big shots…. Lefty’s take $$$ from Emily’s List….Righty’s take $$$$ from the NRA…. The point is: Both Party’s are bad….but when it comes down to it, it depends on your requirement “of and from” government.
Dave M - I think children definitely need to know the value of hard work, goal setting, persistence, etc. but where your tidbit falls short (post #43 could hardly be deemed substantive argument..) is this:
What I do with MY money is NONE of YOUR BUSINESS.
How I raise my children IS NONE OF YOUR USINESS.
The fact that we both despise WASTE and FRAUD in government is a given - unless you’re a kleptomaniac (then you have a bit of an excuse we might utilize…)
Allow me to skew you on your own incredibly stupid words…
July 31st, 2006 at 5:45 pm“The argument here is that this isn’t a feudalist society, and we don’t allow special wonderful treatment in society for families who has an increadibly rich individual or two in it,….” ***** Yes, we do - they’re called Kennedy’s Bushes, Heinz’s etc…” “because we’ve recognized through the wisdom of history that this can only lead to bad times for the rest of us.”*****maybe you’ve recognized something in history the rest of us just haven’t seen yet., but which bad times have we eliminated implementing the “Dave Even/STEVEN Plan”??? FYI, stealing other people’s things doesn’t make them mine….it makes them stolen.
So just give it to us straight, mighty aphrodite. Do you believe democracy works or do you believe we should return to some form of aristocratic/conservative rule over society? The points you isolated and criticized seem to imply you want a) a small number of families to be the economic powerhouses in our society (which necessarily makes them the governmental powerhouses as well, since geat money allows for great power), and b) I really don’t know, something about someone named Dave Evan, who apparently worked with someone named Steven.
Perhaps you could argue on Dave Evan’s philosophies for us… I looked him up and found a lawn fertalizer reseller.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:10 pmWhaaaaaa….It’s just so unfair.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:16 pmthe guys who ratified the constitution would not have been real pleased about old money families controlling the political destiny of this country.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:54 pmhey… gone all day… catching up a little…
i’m curious about something… i went to house.gov to find the vote on this, and found this:
29-Jul H R 5970 On Passage P
Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act
i don’t see anything about “minimum wage”…
July 31st, 2006 at 7:26 pmwhat am i missing?
Katy,
I’ve been looking for the actual bill too, and I think the minimum wage is referred to under Section IV, although it looks as though the actual $2 increase won’t fully go into effect until 2009.
So if anyone can confirm if 5970 is the right bill number that just passed, that would be greater. Some of us are kind of hazy when it comes to interpreting this stuff…
August 1st, 2006 at 10:34 amI like what warren buffet said. You should leave you kids with enough money to do something, but not enough to do nothing. If republicans are so big about “earning money for yourself, why should i give it to someone else, they should just earn it” why don’t they make their kids do the same. It’s a hypocritical view.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm[…] Last night, the Senate rejected a bill that combined the “Paris Hilton tax cut” with an increase in the minimum wage, dealing a blow to conservatives who thought they had “outfoxed†their opponents. […]
August 4th, 2006 at 11:21 am