NEW DOCUMENT: Senate Millionaires Against Raising The Minimum Wage
NEW DOCUMENT: Senate Millionaires Against Raising The Minimum Wage
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.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) continued to resist calls for a straight vote on the minimum wage. “These issues must be addressed as a package, all or nothing,” he said. Unsurprisingly, conservative Senate leaders pushing hardest for further cuts in the estate tax are multimillionaires themselves.
For example, Frist boasts assets between $10,584,000 and $39,260,000 in blind trusts. If one were to work a normal 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year for minimum wage, it would take between 988 and 3,665 years to amass Frist’s fortune. While Frist has stringently supported large tax cuts for fellow multimillionaire trust babies and annual $3,300 pay raises for himself and his Senate colleagues, he has thus far refused to give a small raise to the nearly 8 million Americans who live on $5.15 an hour.
Read our new report on the Senate millionaires who are fighting against a straightforward vote on the minimum wage.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
101 Responses to “NEW DOCUMENT: Senate Millionaires Against Raising The Minimum Wage”
These guys are rich.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:29 amThese guys SUCK. The don’t represent more than 1% of the population. That’s not how our Government is supposed to work.
QUIT ELECTING CAREER POLITICIANS. They are the demise of our Democracy.
I wonder how far off our next Civil War could be?
August 4th, 2006 at 11:33 amAll the multi-millionaires in the Senate must be forced to resign, or voted out of the Senate! Frist is retiring in January, so that takes care of him, but many others remain like Sen. Kerry who is worth a couple hundred million dollars!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:35 ammake room for one more millionaire–mr lamont; but, i am guessing he is for raising the minimum wage.
on his war-mongering opponent:
August 4th, 2006 at 11:36 amI wonder how far off our next Civil War could be?
2 years, 3 months (and counting)…
August 4th, 2006 at 11:38 amAs our own coutnry ’slips into civil war’, the mult-millionare
Senators have tried to increase their self wealth by pretending
to be for a minimum wage increase while inserting an inheritance
tax abolition into the bill. ‘Outfoxed’ is the term they’ve used.
Folks, you are looking right at the problem here…greedy good old
boys whe got elected because of the money they have, not any
specific qualifications to be Senators.
This is not new, but it is time to stop.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:40 amRemember in November!
The greedy war pigs & corporate clowns stop now!
Thats great. These damn republicans show their true selves when they say we’ll give the poor a raise in minimum wage as long as we get extra millions. Screw that. When the democrats take hold of power the minimum wage will go up. without the estate tax.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:41 amHey check out The George W. Bush Memorial Slideshow
See some of the “greatest moments” of the monkeys presidency.
See it here
trip,
that would be equal to ‘4 1/2 friedmans and counting’ :)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:45 amGrassley’s landholdings are farm assets from when he used to be a farmer. The numbers amount to roughly two average-sized Iowa farms. He, in fact, is the only family farm owner/former family farm worker in the Senate.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:46 amRiders on bills should be outlawed, period. Each seperate measure should be weighed and passed or defeated based upon its own merits.
Yes, this would probably result in a significant increase in workload for Congress critters, but they are getting paid enough for what they do.
One more thing…a law we desperately need is one that ties the Congress critter’s salary to the minimum wage…say, 10 times minimum wage. That would make the Congressional pay rate $51.50/hour. If they want to give themselves a pay raise, the only way ought to be to raise the minimum wage.
(Of course, this will never happen…the problem with having a group of people make laws for everyone is that they tend to make laws that benefit themselves…the fox guarding the henhouse and all that jazz…)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:46 amSenate is a millionaires club > perhaps it has always been that way > the founding fathers of this nation patterned the Senate after England’s House of Lords, so they wanted wealthy men to become Senators, but the House of Representatives was expected to represent common Americans, just like the House of Commons does in England/UK! Having said that it still is vile for men of wealth to prevent a raise in minimum wage, so all of them must resign, or be voted out of the Senate! Sen. Kerry voted to raise the min. wage, but he is also the wealthiest member of the Senate, and since he is a Democrat it looks bad for the party!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:48 amdamn! i thought i would take the lead of the other thread and add a ‘friedman’ to the urban dictionary, but, it is already there!
glad to see it…
August 4th, 2006 at 11:50 amnot joe: you can always go create a Wikipedia entry…
August 4th, 2006 at 11:53 amNed Lamont is worth a few million, but Joe Lieberman is a shill for the wealthy, and the GOP, so Ned is the better choice! Joe is worth about one million he claims, but I am sure that Joe has offshore hidden bank accounts, probably in Israel, so do NOT let Lieberman fool you that he is not a millionaire, when he secretly is one!
August 4th, 2006 at 11:53 amGeorge Bush doesn’t care about American People.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:54 amPeople talk about career politicians, but don’t seem to understand that it isn’t the careers that cause the problems, its the men. I personally want my docter to be knowledgable on what different diseases can do…and how to fix them. Why do we want people who don’t know a thing about governing? After all that is what we have now…those in power that have no idea about governing, and alot on how to scam.
We expect people who have done nothing but earn a living to govern a population of 295,734,134 in a very complex country., that is getting more complex every day. There is no institutional memory left except for those who have been there for years. And its very important that, that memory continues.
The most honerable men we have have been in politics for years…after all, they can make more on the outside and choose to be of service. And some of the biggest crooks have been those who have only passed through. Do we want people who only plan to be in office long enough to make contacts then go on to K Street?
So, its up to us…not term limits to make sure we have what we want. That takes effort on our part…you know Democracy.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:54 ampublic fincanced campaigns - the only solution…
millionaire or not, the best candidate wins…
August 4th, 2006 at 11:56 amWhy is that list only populated by Repubs?
There are plenty of Senate Dems who are bazillionares too.
(Hint: Start by looking at those few Dems that voted FOR the Paris Hilton tax cut.)
August 4th, 2006 at 11:57 amReply to katy:
Amen, katy. All candidates get a set amount of public monies to campaign with. Using private funds, whatever the source, should be verboten.
To those who would say that this amounts to an infringement on free speech, is it right that some people can afford more freedom of speech than others?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pm#17 katy - I agree. I also think there should be more televised debates and less TV ads, mud slinging, and “sound bites.” Also, all lobby dollars should be banned. Lobbyists are free to pester them for time to present their issue as a paid advocate for a corporation or group, but cannot offer any financial incentive or trip or any compensation to sway the vote towards their direction.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:01 pmNot all the rich are greedy, only the Republican Rich.
Kerry and Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kohl, constantly work for the greater good, not selfish interests.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:01 pmIt would take someone between 1,000 and 3,699 years to amass that fortune IF THEY HAD NO EXPENSES DURING THAT TIME! Good luck with that.
Those bastards.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:02 pmPost 18 > Sen. Byrd is senile now and had NO idea that he was voting with Republicans to give a tax cut to billionaires > lol. Democrats are too timid to tell Byrd to retire, so he will probably get re-elected in November, but then drop dead from old age a few months later! Bad move by Dems, because then his Senate seat will probably be grabbed by a Republican!
August 4th, 2006 at 12:03 pmWe have one senator that is for the American people. Senator Russ Feingold from my proud state of Wisconsin.
I hope he runs for President. I will vote for him only.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pm#18, MrBlueSky - Yes, it is unfortunate. But we need these “moderate” libs for now to take control back of the Senate and House. After we purge the worst offenders, we can start working on purging them too. If we get rid of them now, we might get a worse repub who will never vote with us in their place.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:04 pmLiberals want to stick it to small business owners. If you have 10 workers, where is the small business owner supposed to find the extra $40,000 or so per year to pay these workers more money? They will have to cut their workforce to pay for it.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:08 pmI think the take on this bill might be off, of course the republicans wanted the Paris Hiton tax cut but I believe their prime objective was taking away one of the democrat’s big campaign issues with the minimum wage. Before the House passed the wage bill, democrats were crowing on the fact that the GOP was against raising the minimum wage even though most of America wanted it. Now that the Democrats in the Senate were the key in downing the minimum wage increase, because of the estate tax poison pill the House added, that campaign issue is off the table.
The GOP can now say that they were all for raising the minimum wage when it comes to campaigning for November and that it was the Democrats that killed it. It was a no lose situation for republicans, if the bill passed the got their estate tax cut and if it failed the democrats lost a talking point for the election to use against them.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:09 pmParrotlover77:
You’ve just made the case for my billionaire Senator who is up for re-election, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA).
RealNetworks made her millions. She loves the war in Iraq and stands firm with Bu$hit on it. But, she (along with my other Senator) stopped this horrid Paris Hilton tax cut.
So, I’ll vote for her in November… then work on ousting her in 2012.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:10 pmSDmoderate:
That’s what the Repubs want the world to think… but it is backfiring on them already.
The world knows that, for 7 states, including Cali and WA, it would be a minimum wage CUT, not increase.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:14 pmMr Big lol > if a so-called small business owner needs to come up with an additional $40,000 in payroll for employees, then that business is NOT a small one! A REAL small business is 10 employees or less > NOT the GOP standard of 100 employees!
August 4th, 2006 at 12:14 pmmost small businesses do not pay employees minimum wage..just becuase they are labled “small” does not mean poor. I work for a small business and deal with tons of others…noone works for minimum wage and are quite profitable. Minimum wage goes to the uneducated/unskilled/young worker at big store chain jobs. Upping the minimum wage does not hurt small business..it hurts “bigger” business because they are the ones who don’t need highly skilled workers to do their jobs.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:15 pm#28, MrBlueSky - It is unfortunate, but probably the right decision. Now if she had a decent opponent in the primaries, I’d say go for it! But if she’s the Dem candidate in Nov, better her than more of the lock-step Repubs.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:16 pm^directed at #26
August 4th, 2006 at 12:16 pmThey’re such studs.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI bet they get all the chicks.
That is the dumbest hting I’ve ever heard. What small business only employs, say, 10 minimum wage employees? The company I work for is small and the lowest salary in the company is roughly 40k annual.
Small companies tend to support a niche market and as such tend to need more skilled workers that demand higher pay. Small companies cannot afford to pay for a “middle management” team to oversee unskilled workers getting paid minimum wage. It would be more expensive than hiring higher skilled workers.
The companies affected by this are places like Wal-mart and fast food, etc, all of which easily have the financial resources to eat a “forced raise” for their lowest tier workers. They have no incentive to increase their minimum salary on their own because the increase in profit goes direclty to the higher tier of employees, such as the greedy executives that rake in all the cash with their wonderful bonuses for saving money by slashing jobs, benefits, and salaries. They need workers and will not cut their workforce due to this. They cut their workforce only when demand goes down for their product/services. In other words, Wal-mart can’t have less cashiers or they will lose customers. But they certainly won’t hire more just because they are cheaper.
The small business argument is a complete falacy. I’m not saying there arent minimum wage employees in small businesses, but the actual financial impact to small businesses overall is extremely small. And I further submit that even in companies where it actually may make a small dent, it in no way will cause any lost sleep to the small business owners. It will be simply a small new business expense, no worse than a salary increase for a worker who has been employed with the company for some time.
This can be proven by what has happened EVERY time the minimum wage was increased in the past. It has NEVER caused an undue burden on any company it affected, nor has it EVER caused a decline in the U.S. economy.
Think about it… Poeple who will receive a “raise” because of this will have more money to spend. It could stimulate the economy. The poor and middle class spend signficantly more of their annual income on “stuff” than the wealthy.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:26 pmyawn said, “most small businesses do not pay employees minimum wage..”
And the ones that do? Where are they supposed to find this extra money? Should they lay off workers to pay for it, pass the cost to consumers, what?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:26 pmPublic funded political campaigns would be very difficult to implement, very costly in taxpayer dollars, and would never be accepted by the majority of Americans. Or so I think. However, an absolute limit on campaign expendetures (with different limits for different political offices) may be more workable. What is more important is to remove the corporate interests (our founding fathers, wisely, feared and loathed any corporations being involved in politics). No corporation may contribute to any politician, and no person serving as an executive may donate, no corporate PACs, etc. (and many other nit-picky rules to keep the corporates from sliming their way in the system) — kind of like the sweepstakes rules: you can’t play if you work for, or have a family member working for the sweepstakes company. The taxpayers could fund an office of auditors who continually monitor the politicians and their campaigns. That would be a lot cheaper than financing everyone who wanted to run for an office: which would also be the problem, as a system of public funded campaigns would have to award that money to any qualified person wanting to run, or it would have to limit the running to “accepted” political parties, thus maiking America legally goverened only by those parties.
And #20: no lobbiest “gifts” or “compensation” at all in any way for any reason is SO obviously the way it should be. Unfortunately, as is already painfully obvious, those who can alter the law to that are those who profit from the “gifts”, and being self-centered greedy pigs, they will not voluntarily change the system (as we have already seen — has there been ANY kind of real lobby reform? No.).
A politician running for an office is not exercising his “freedom of speech” — he is applying for a job. An employer (in this case it is (supposed to be) “We the people”) may determine fair measures for qualifying applicants. Now, if said politician wanted to simply express his or her views, on his or her own dime and time, then fine: say as you will. But there is no solid argument that setting requirements and limits to politicians running for an office is an abridgement of their free speech rights, because it would not be. One would need to judge whether the method was fair and balanced, and offered the same opportunities to all applicants. Setting cash ceilings would not be unfair, and would be fairer than the system as it stands.
That’s my 2 pence, anyhow.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:27 pmJay Randall claimed, “if a so-called small business owner needs to come up with an additional $40,000 in payroll for employees, then that business is NOT a small one!”
Sure it is. Use the scenario I came up with. 10 employees, working 40 hours per week, paid $2 more per hour, is around $40,000 extra per year for the employer in payroll. Where is this money supposed to come from? Should the small business just shut down?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:31 pmParrotlover said, “What small business only employs, say, 10 minimum wage employees?”
Many of them. How about a bakery?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:33 pmMaybe the owners of such a sweatshop should take a paycut instead. I ask you to submit to me one small company that will have any undue burden by raising their lowest tier employees from $5.15 to $7.25 / hr. Keep in mind this is still FAR behind the rate of inflation. I would have wanted the minimum wage to be at least $8 / hr, personally. And then I agree with posters near the top of this thread that suggest that congressional pay raises should be directly tied to the minimum wage. This should be a constitutional amendment, so that it is more difficult to overturn during times the congress is full of the greedy rich, like now.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:34 pmPlutocratic bastards, all of them! Ladies and gents, its time to storm the Bastille… SERIOUSLY! If the Repubs steal the mid-term elections, we, the middle class, have no choice but to excercise the right - the DUTY- to overthrow this government that has become the antithesis of what our founding fathers intended!
August 4th, 2006 at 12:35 pmHow did they survive ten years ago when the minimum wage was, adjusted for inflation, much higher than now?
Your example is vague. A small bakery with an owner or two and then just a fleet of ten minimum wage workers? That doesn’t make sense. What do these minimum wage workers do that (a) is so important it is vital to the company, and (b) is unskilled enough to be low enough to be subject to the minimum wage?
Lastly, I still believe that the example company you have come up with woudl be analogous to a sweat-shop. Sure, a minimum wage will affect a sweatshop. But are these the types of businesses we want in the United States? This is the type of economy we want to prove to the rest of the world that our free market economy is the best in the world?
August 4th, 2006 at 12:37 pmMr. Big the raise is stretched over 3 years, so first year is 70 cents more an hour, so redo your figures!
August 4th, 2006 at 12:40 pmMr. Big and Parrotlover77:
May I get a word in here?
Mr. Big’s concerns are valid, but I believe I have the answer.
As long as the wage increases are MODERATE and are PASSED WELL IN ADVANCE OF A CERTAIN EFFECTIVE DATE, then the economy will learn to cope.
That’s what happened at all other minimum wage increases.
Yes, there were/are/will be some companies that will indeed go out of business.
But, in the overall economy, businesses/industry will learn to cope… as will the CPI, which will likely increase (and add threat of inflation) as a result.
Moderate increases… and ordered in advance of an effective date are what will keep the economy from tanking altogether… and increase the chances of a “lift” to the overall economy.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:41 pmAlso, Mr. Big, the productivity of 400 man-hours per week not being able survive a mere $40,000 / year extra cost is an inefficient business. Think about it. That means the profit margin on the products being produced is EXTREMELY low –OR– the owner is extremely greedy. I cannot think of a bakery that produces baked goods for that low of a margin, so your example would support my “sweat shop” argument.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:44 pmIt is indeed the only way.
As it stands now, the rich are doing excellently well in the Bush years.
The middle class is shrinking quickly and are just barely able to keep their heads above water at this time.
The rich have had it well for far too long now… and the middle class needs time to benefit as well. Raising the minimum wage is only one aspect of this.
Another is universal healthcare… and a steady increase in jobs outlook.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#45, MrBlueSky - your “compromise” is, indeed, what the congress is advocating — a phased in minimum wage over several years. I fully support the phase-in process. I still challenge anybody to find a business that went OUT of business due to minimum wage increase anytime in history.
I just do not believe that to be true. Even if the timing is the same… Say a company went out of business a month after an increase, I submit that it would have happened regardless of the increase.
The increases are very small and do not even match inflation increases over the past years. As such, companies are making more money and not paying their lowest tier workers as much. It’s a very simple equation.
This would be moot if the minimum wage was increase in even smaller amounts on a regular schedule, say yearly, tied to the increase of inflation. So instead of revsiting this every 5-10 years, we increase it by something very small, such as like 10 cents every year. (note: I have not done the math on the actual value of the raise due to inflation, so the “ten cent” figure is a complete guess)
August 4th, 2006 at 12:48 pmRemember when all the REPUBLICAN BITCHES (Senators) were clamoring for a “fair up or down vote” on their Judicial suckups? I guess they can’t have a FAIR UP OR DOWN VOTE on STANDALONE minimum wage hikes, huh? Have to attach it to one of their “Bush’s Base” giveaways.
August 4th, 2006 at 12:49 pmPost 49 Parrot > if the minimum wage had been raised 25 cents for the past 8 years, then it would be $2.00 more now, so it would be $7.15 now! I think 25 cent raise a year is fair for bottom rung workers, and NO company can claim hardship over that amount! Problem now is that min wage was NOT raised for over 8 years, so needs to come up 2 bucks pronto!
August 4th, 2006 at 1:05 pmPost 48 I mean
August 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pmThis TP nugget explains the narrow thinking of the Left in an easy to digest NUTshell. The Left, claiming big ideas and ideals are actually “tiny-tot” thinkers.
Lefty “logic” is well inllustrated with this verbose take:
“For example, Frist boasts assets between $10,584,000 and $39,260,000 in blind trusts. If one were to work a normal 40-hour week for 52 weeks a year for minimum wage, it would take between 988 and 3,665 years to amass Frist’s fortune.”
Brilliant use of a calculator!!! Quick - grab the flamethrower, er…. keyboard. The author ASSUMES the “minimum wage slave” will never advance at a job, receive raises, pursue a different career, spend any money, invest any money, waste any money, etc. But remember, political power on the Left is banking on keeping an impoverished segment “in their place”. Convincing others that their lot in life would be SOOO much better if only we collectively punish “the rich” is not quite as original as when it was penned and dessimated 150+ years ago, but no one ever accused “proressives” of actually BEING progressive. “Petty” and “power-hungry” are more accurate adjectives….
August 4th, 2006 at 1:29 pmMA > the Republicans love the filthy rich and want poor people to drop dead > a few of them to be their servants or slaves > anyway cut your usual bull-crap on here > go cut Newt’s hair > lol.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:33 pmTo be fair, Sen. Smith (R-OR) voted in favor of one (out of three — and it’s the middle one) of the minimum wage bills, is on the record in favor of minimum wage increase in principle, and comes from a state with a (iirc) $7.25 minimum wage. Unless linkage is given to demonstrate that the other bills that he voted against didn’t contain amendment-anathema, I’d have a hard time accepting that he’s just another fat-cat politician in favor of socioeconomic oppression. I disagree with him on several social issues and fear his red R, but he’s never given me any reason to believe that he’s an imperalist slimeball like some of the others on that (Fr)list.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThere’s one thing that’s not being mentioned in the debate about helping the poorer working classes versus helping the upper class, and that is morality. The right wing believe that it is immoral to help those who are poor, because they are poor for a reason, usually insufficient virtue (after all, Calvinism ties work to virtue). Add in your standard circular logic (if a then b, if b then a), not only do the rich possess such wealth because of their superior moral worth, but they have more moral worth because they are rich. How you got the money is irrelevant. First, they demand that we end welfare “as we know it”. OK, fine. Now everyone has to get a job, which is a good thing, IMO. What no one bothered to mention is that things like child care, transportation, and so on, would get in the way. It turns out that you can’t bring your kid to work every day. All of this suggests that the right wing are motivated not by disdain for freeloaders, but by utter contempt for the poorer working-class people themselves. They don’t want to help them; they don’t want to pay them. Let them eat cake.
As for the rationalizing, I’m convinced that if we were having this discussion in 1860, the right wing would be arguing that emancipation would be catastrophic for the economy, the morality of the issue be damned. Of course, one interpretation of that act holds that Lincoln did it precisely because it would have such an impact on the productivity of Southern states. I’m sure that we’d hear lots of “statistics”, and excuses to justify maintaining the status quo.
In the real world, that is, one where things are not black and white, and life is full of real dilemmas, not false ones, the morality of the issue must be considered. Personally, I think it’s wrong to help so few at the expense of so many. I’m sure that this view will get me labeled “communist” or “socialist” by someone who can only see things in black and white.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:04 pmStrange how they leave off Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, Reid, Edwards, and Lautenberg off the millionaire list. How many 40 hour weeks would one have to work to end up with 200 million like Kerry. Bill Frist is not even in the top 3. Those spots all belong to Dems. Check out which Democrats voted against this bill and you will see which ones enjoy “sticking it” to the rich more than they want to help the poor.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:07 pmThe author ASSUMES the “minimum wage slave†will never advance at a job, receive raises[…]
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 4, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Fine then, let’s assume we are talking about a person who makes a comfortable $100,000 a year. Or, more appropriately, let’s assume that amount is what this person can set aside per year after taking care of all their expenses (children’s tuition, mortage, car payments, etc.)
It would still take them between 106 and 392 years worth of saving to reach the amount of money Frist has accumulated in his trust funds.
But that wouldn’t give anybody an idea of how low the minimum wage is -which is the point of the thread. Duh!
August 4th, 2006 at 2:20 pmLowering the inheritence tax (which Republicans keep wanting to call the “death tax”, and claim it affects EVERYONE, not just the wealthy) would cost the country over 300 billion dollars in the next 10 years.
And who would it really help?
Small business owners? Not really, they generally don’t pass down multi-million dollar inheritences to their kids. Ma ‘n Pa on the family farm? Not unless the family spread is worth a few million. The poor? Hell no. The ‘average american’ family? Nope.
The very wealthy? Ahh, there you go.
Increasing the minimum wage is important. Right now it pays roughly 10k a year, which is only $500 year above the poverty level for a single person (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml).
Trying to tie a minimum wage increase to a tax break for the wealthy in order to try and make it look like the republicans “care” about the poor is incredibly sleazy.
I’d say the republicans should be ashamed of themselves, but they’ve proven time and time again that they have no shame.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:44 pmThe best argument for raising the min wage is the fact that since the last time it was raised there has been a huge increase in the number of workers receiving this wage not less. The old mantra that this hurts workers because there will be less jobs for them is total bullshit. This is just a no-brainer.
Also regarding public financing of elections we have that now, but because of the current laws that these plutocrats have passed many rich candidates decide to refuse the money so they can spend in an unlimited manner. We should raise the amount these politicians make per year and they shouldn’t be able to take money from ANY source at all. They should be limited in the amount they could spend. But the supremes have called spending free speech so there is a blockade to this idea. Also the airwaves should be used evenly and all candidates should get alloted a given amount of airtime to present their case to be elected. But of course this will never happen in the plutocracy that exists today, the system is far to good for the greedy.T he amount of money raked in by the media giants every election cycle is staggering. So much for the public airwaves. The tyranny of the status quo all over again.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThose evil, greedy, unfeeling republicans. How dare they believe that people should have the right to keep what is theirs and pass it along to their children after their death! Don’t they know that the government is the best and most loving father and mother? Why can’t they learn that everything really belongs to the government, not to the greedy, corrupt, incompetent people. Why, our own Supreme Court tried to show the way, by ruling that the government is allowed to take whatever it wants, from whomever it wishes and give it to anybody it thinks should have it. Why can’t those damned republicans understand that this is the best way of doing things. Why, look how well this sort of system has worked in Cuba, the USSR and all other nations in which the people are truly happy. I say we should force Karl Rove to tell us which buildings the Bush administration has decided to secretly blow up next–during the faking of a terrorist attack–and send all of the congessional republicans there. We can have Sandy Berger take all of the records and no one will ever know. We’ll make Kofi Annan president, surrender to al Qaeda, tax all of the rich people at 100%, make gasoline 20 cents a gallon, raise the minimum wage to 40.00 an hour, pass a free health care law, disband the military and once again, everyone will love the United States.
August 4th, 2006 at 2:48 pmYes, by all means, let’s do away with the inheritence tax all together.
So, where should that 300+ billion dollars that the government is losing in taxes come from?
What shall they cut from the budget?
More social programs? First responder programs? Homeland security? Port security? Education? Medicare?
Oh wait, they’re already cutting all those things to pay for the LAST tax break they gave to the rich, and the country is STILL hemoraging money…
August 4th, 2006 at 2:59 pmTO TP: Recheck your calculations…. It’d take a few more thousand years longer to amass such fortunes because the poor have to eat while amassing those fortunes!
As to those who asked where the $40,000 a year would come from (small business scenario), I’d say you’re right! Perhaps we could REDUCE the minimun wage so that business can become more profitable and maybe hire a couple more workers!
Come to think of it, why not eliminate wages altogether, you know, like when the business owner also owns his workers!
August 4th, 2006 at 3:05 pmHow about a bakery?
Comment by Mr. Big
Aw, you mean I’m going to have to pay 10 cents more for my bagel? I had NO idea what a tragic effect raising the minimum wage would have?!!?!?!
August 4th, 2006 at 3:10 pmPost #60… how freakin’ GREEDY!!!!!
“For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evils.” - the Bible
I’ll bet you want the rich to just keep getting richer and the poor to just keep getting poorer.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:25 pmThe poor get stiffed on minimun wage, the rich say gimme gimme gimme gimme.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:48 pm#60
That’s hilarious and a riot! Unfortunately, most of minds here have turned to liberal mush and it will be lost on them.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:59 pmAt least now we know exactly where the Democrats stand. They clearly think that an increase in the minimum wage is less important than keeping the estate tax from increasing from the current 2 million dollar exemption to a 5 million dollar exemption. It is more critical that we keep the rich from passing more onto their heirs then helping countless people who are trying to support their families on a paltry $5.15 per hour. If it comes down to a decision to either a) hurt the rich or b) help the poor, Democrats will put all of their energy into sticking it to the rich every time. Hooya!!!
August 4th, 2006 at 5:35 pmNot only is that a generalization, it’s the wrong conclusion. Politically speaking, it’s far easier to correct an omission than an action, that is, do what hasn’t been done, rather than undo what’s been done. “Sticking it to the rich” doesn’t enter into it.
August 4th, 2006 at 5:44 pm[…] elected officials. No wonder they wanted the Estate Tax repealed and won’t give someone making minimum wage $2.00. […]
August 4th, 2006 at 5:55 pmYes, by all means, let’s do away with the inheritence tax all together.
So, where should that 300+ billion dollars that the government is losing in taxes come from?
What shall they cut from the budget?
More social programs? First responder programs? Homeland security? Port security? Education? Medicare?
Oh wait, they’re already cutting all those things to pay for the LAST tax break they gave to the rich, and the country is STILL hemoraging money…
Comment by wumpusrat — August 4, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
First, federal tax revenues have increased by 26% in the past year with the tax breaks. The total taxes collected have increased tremendously since the tax cuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2006/ 07/ 09/ washington/ 09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Secondly, to the question on what should be cut, I personally like your list but if we just cut the rate of growth in half on absolutely everything the deficit would be gone before can say boo, including the impact from the tax break for the estate tax.
Thirdly, you stated, “the country is STILL hemorrhaging [sic] money.†If money is pouring out of the countries veins, doesn’t that mean we’re drowning in it? Maybe your point was that the country is dying an odd kind of death where it is internally generating so much money that all of it’s systems will soon shut down do to overload. That does sound bad.
August 4th, 2006 at 5:57 pmNot only is that a generalization, it’s the wrong conclusion. Politically speaking, it’s far easier to correct an omission than an action, that is, do what hasn’t been done, rather than undo what’s been done. “Sticking it to the rich†doesn’t enter into it.
Comment by CJ — August 4, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
Of course it was a generalization. Just like conservatives would rather cut taxes than allow an increase in the minimum wage. What? Are generalizations against the rules here? I didn’t get the memo.
It’s easier to do what hasn’t been done than undo what’s been done? Oh that’s rich. Was this translated into Farsi and then back into English? This is your explanation for why the Democrats chose axing the minimum wage to prevent an estate tax cut? Let’s see, jumping straight up in the air 20 feet hasn’t been done but it’s not so easy to do. I find it much easier to undo almost anything than to do what hasn’t been done in more ways then I care to mention. You’re hysterical.
And Democrats don’t want to stick it to the rich? What planet were you from again?
August 4th, 2006 at 6:20 pmNot one family farm has ever gone “under” because of the estate tax.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:21 pmThe estate tax is an unearned windfall to the heirs - it is not taxed twice to them.
(We often are taxed twice - we pay sales tax, for instance, on money we have already been taxed on.)
The ratio of taxes on the middle class far exceed the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy. The middle class and below need and spend all their earned income. The rich invest the excess for their heirs.
There is an amount of several million that is not subject to the inheritance tax — the taxation begins once that point is met.
The Repugs should be embarrassed to even consider attaching the repeal of the estate tax to the increase in minimum wage.
But then again, one must be sensitive in order to feel embarrassment.
All you have to do is take a look at those faces and it all becomes abundantly clear. The same faces of the slave owners. The cotton is supposed to be picked for free.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:29 pmComment by Marie — August 4, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
Not one family farm has ever gone “under†because of the estate tax.
I knew a guy who had a software company that had about 35 employees. When he was 47 he died in a car crash. He didn’t do any tax planning so the full estate tax came due. This was about 3 years ago when the exemption was 1 million. They valued the company at $8.5 million which included a discount for being closely held. He was divorced so instantly 50% of the tax was due from his children on $7.5 million. The company was sold on a fire sale to some venture capitalists who quickly rolled the company into another software company in their portfolio. All of the employees lost their jobs obviously. The kids did end up collecting a fraction of the value of the company which was about $600k a piece. But the employees were still just as unemployed. I believe those employees would call that going under, wouldn’t you?
The estate tax is an unearned windfall to the heirs - it is not taxed twice to them.
(We often are taxed twice - we pay sales tax, for instance, on money we have already been taxed on.)
Let’s see…you claim that the estate tax is not a double tax and the proudly defend double taxation immediately afterwards. Mmmmm
The ratio of taxes on the middle class far exceed the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy.
The numbers aren’t a big secret. Anyone can look them up. The Top 50% of wage earners pay over 97% of all federal income taxes and the top 1% pays more than 34%. The bottom 25% of wage earners pay (3%) in federal income taxes. That’s right; due to the earned income tax credit they actually get an effective welfare payment. I’m sorry, I just don’t see that grave injustice that you’re talking about. Just how much more money do you think you will bring into the goverment by increasing taxes on employers?
August 4th, 2006 at 7:03 pmHe didn’t do any tax planning so the full estate tax came due.
Comment by PointMan12 — August 4, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
As unfortunate as the story is, the fault is on the owner’s lack of planning.
Not to mention that the same logic can be applied to advocate annulling all taxes. I know people who had to sell their homes when they couldn’t pay the capital gain taxes on their stock options.
you claim that the estate tax is not a double tax and the proudly defend double taxation immediately afterwards
The estate tax is not double taxation. Check here and here.
The Top 50% of wage earners pay over 97% of all federal income taxes and the top 1% pays more than 34%.
It is heartwarming to see you rooting for the downtrodden, and the underdog, you know, the Hiltons, the Gateses, the… you get the idea.
Your logic is perverse. Top earners pay more in taxes because they make so much more money than the rest of us.
Here is a Forbes article from 2003:
The 400 highest-paid Americans earned $69.6 billion in adjusted gross income in 2000, or just under $174 million each, according to a U.S. Internal Revenue Service report released yesterday. […] The average tax rate for the top 400 was 22.29%, down from 26.4% in 1992.
Forbes.com - The IRS 400
$174 million each!? And these are the people you want us to feel sorry for?
Sheesh….
August 4th, 2006 at 7:51 pmi always wondered how the right came up with illogical talking points such as the Left is banking on keeping an impoverished segment “in their placeâ€
all it takes is a simple anecdotal example such as:
“For example, Frist boasts assets…in blind trusts. If one were to work…for minimum wage, it would take between 988 and 3,665 years to amass Frist’s fortune.â€
twist and turn, bend and shape… oh, i see…
August 4th, 2006 at 8:14 pmComment by Gregor Samsa — August 4, 2006 @ 7:51 pm
As unfortunate as the story is, the fault is on the owner’s lack of planning.
Not to mention that the same logic can be applied to advocate annulling all taxes. I know people who had to sell their homes when they couldn’t pay the capital gain taxes on their stock options.
First off, no amount of tax planning would have reduced the estate tax on the software company materially because he was only in business for 4 years. There was no way to maximize the annual gift exemption by transferring shares to his children enough to make a dent on the estate transfer value (which is the most effective tax strategy to avoid estate taxes). This guy was hardly a moron. On the other hand, the “people†you know who had to sell their home were indeed morons. Any brokerage firm in the world will convert options, net of tax, into net proceeds or net actual shares. Sold their house!?!? I seriously doubt that you know anybody that stupid.
The estate tax is not double taxation. Check here and here.
Thanks so much for the left wing web site references. I suppose all I need to do is site some right wing sites and then consider the case closed, eh? The owners of companies pay taxes on all of the earnings of their companies from day one. Practically all of the people subject to the estate tax today are owners of businesses. If the company was at all successful then either the company or the business owner (depending on whether it was a C, S or LLC) paid at least a 35% tax rate. Now the business owner dies and the valuation of the company is assessed a 50% tax. That’s pretty damned straight forward. And look, I didn’t even have to link to a partisan web site to make my point for me. I could form my arguments all by my little self.
Your logic is perverse. Top earners pay more in taxes because they make so much more money than the rest of us.
Here is a Forbes article from 2003:
The 400 highest-paid Americans earned $69.6 billion in adjusted gross income in 2000, or just under $174 million each, according to a U.S. Internal Revenue Service report released yesterday. […] The average tax rate for the top 400 was 22.29%, down from 26.4% in 1992.
Forbes.com - The IRS 400
$174 million each!? And these are the people you want us to feel sorry for?
Look, go back and read the New York Times article I referenced in post #70. The total tax revenues are soaring and the increase is being paid almost entirely by the rich. Yes, they are paying more taxes because they are making so much more on their investments in companies. Does that really make you guys feel bad about life? They are paying more to the government than ever and they have substantially more money invested in businesses than they would have otherwise. Is the goal to injure the rich or have them pay most of the taxes? Talk about perverse. Let’s assume that we take ten percent of the richest people’s wealth away from them today and transfer it to the government. Right about now you leftist types are having wet dreams but now billions of dollars have been removed from the investment pools of tens of thousands of companies and now those dollars reside in the most bureaucratic entity on the face of the earth. That’ll solve all of our problems, won’t it?
Sheesh….
Oh…Sheesh, eh. Well. I got nothing.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:00 pmno amount of tax planning would have reduced the estate tax on the software company materially because he was only in business for 4 years.
Comment by PointMan12 — August 4, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
Not planning on reducing it, but planning on how to pay it. A good life insurance policy is included in any estate tax planning nowadays. I don’t pretend to know it all, and I didn’t say your friend was a moron.
Sold their house!?!? I seriously doubt that you know anybody that stupid.
You’d be surprised. Greed makes people stupid. And that couple are not the only ones either: I also know people stupid enough to max their 401Ks with their company’s stock fund. Dot com stock funds. Yeah.
Thanks so much for the left wing web site references. I suppose all I need to do is site some right wing sites and then consider the case closed, eh?
WTF are you talking about? FactCheck and the Center for Budget Policies are left-wing!? They both use the IRS’ own figures -what you are saying in essence is that the IRS is left-wing. I guess for you reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Fact is, most of the accumulated wealth that is subject to the estate tax are assets that have appreciated (stocks, funds, real estate, etc.) and have never been taxed as income. Here is another source:
And while the tax may “double tax” income in some cases, much of the wealth subject to estate tax was earned through untaxed capital gains and so has never been subject to the income tax.
Options to Reform the Estate Tax
“Left-wing” web sites? That was strange to put it mildly…
Is the goal to injure the rich or have them pay most of the taxes? Talk about perverse.
Let’s try this again: The amount in money the wealthy pay through taxes is higher simply because they make more money. 30% of $10million is much more than 30% of $100,000. They are not being taxed more. They make more, and so end up paying more.
Why, how would paying taxes injure the rich?
Let’s assume that we take ten percent of the richest people’s wealth away from them today and transfer it to the government.
Let’s talk reality instead. The American Jobs Creation Act that Pres Bush touted as a formula to create jobs in the US, lowered the tax bracket to as little as 5.25% on repatriated funds from corporate offshore bank accounts, creating a windfall of revenue for companies in the US. Where did the money go? To stock buybacks and to finance mergers. But don’t take my word, let BusinessWeek tell you:
One thing is clear, however: The money piling in from abroad as the result of the Jobs Creation Act has done little to actually spur hiring. In fact, six of the 10 companies repatriating the biggest totals are axing workers in the U.S.
Profits Head Homeward, But Where Are The Jobs?
Feel free to distrust BusinessWeek. Who knows, they might also be “left-wing” (??).
August 5th, 2006 at 2:22 amAn inconvenient truth: The minimum wage costs jobs. Look it up. Everytime the minimum wage is increased, unemployment for the poor and middle class goes up.
August 5th, 2006 at 8:45 amAn inconvenient truth: The minimum wage costs jobs.
Comment by Jeff — August 5, 2006 @ 8:45 am
An actual truth: The statement above is a myth. Several states across the US have condcted studies and have found little, if any, cause-effect relation between minimum wage increase and job losses.
Q: Does increasing the minimum wage cost jobs?
Mounting evidence indicates that moderate increases to the minimum wage result in little, if any, employment loss. Many economists now agree that modest wage increases do not lead to large job losses. Debate now centers on whether job losses exist or are merely very small.
California Budget Project: Questions and Answers on the Minimum Wage in California
In general, there is no valid, research-based rationale for believing that state minimum wages cause measurable job losses. Making the extreme case that the job losses are severe enough to show up in a noticeably elevated state unemployment rate is a wild extension of a largely unfounded theory.
Economic Policy Institute: Employment and the Minimum Wage
The belief that raising minimum wage will result in unemployment is a myth, bunk.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pm#55 - “…helping the poorer working classes versus helping the upper class, and that is morality. The right wing believe that it is immoral to help those who are poor, because they are poor for a reason, usually insufficient virtue…” Comment by CJ
*******Presuming you are not a right-winger, I find it highly presumptuous of you to share with us the moral precepts of conservatives. What are your sources for your statement? However, I agree with you on the point of morality. But I think different conclusions may be drawn given biases, etc.
How moral is it to take from others that which does not belong to us? (The faulty logic that “the rich have plenty” is not pertinent to this aspect of morality.)
How moral is it to do for others what they CAN and should do for themselves? (This does NOT mean we allow the incapable to wither and starve. But able bodied, able minded people should get the respect they deserve by not being turned into creatures of entitlement programs. Programs which perpetuate low-income lifestyles for generations are NOT kind - they cripple whole segments of society.)
Progressives who deem immoral the property wealthy people leave to children, friends, charities, etc. suddenly set themselves up to do what big government types crave - decide what is the best course of disbursement of SOMEONE ELSE’S property.
I do find the broadbrush application of Calvinist religious tenets a charming historical perspective - but of very little use in modern America. Many good citizens, fine parents, loyal employees may be found in the ranks of the poor AND wealthy. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmNPR, oh where have you gone? Today, I was listening to Weekend Edition and on two occassions when talking about the wage cut/ tax cut bill, they described it as a “COMPROMISE” !!!! They described how the democrats are going to have a hard time defending their actions, however justifiable, as they can’t roll it up into a neat little sound bite! I can’t believe how bad our press is right now. So.. NPR, if you’re reading this. Why don’t you explain it to the American People. Why don’t you, who we used to trust, tell the American people that it wasn’t a compromise, it was a cynical political move, called a poison pill designed for nothing but to either give a tax break to the rich or create a REPUBLICAN sound bite for the upcoming election. In other words, why don’t you do your job? We can listen for more than thirty seconds.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pmI do find the broadbrush application of Calvinist religious tenets a charming historical perspective - but of very little use in modern America. Many good citizens, fine parents, loyal employees may be found in the ranks of the poor AND wealthy. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 5, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Calvinist!! what a crock! Where did you dig that up? How did the “Pre-chosen” get into this? And just what does that have to do with the minium wage? You just love to post your crap and that is all it is.
August 5th, 2006 at 10:03 pmWhat’s wrong with this guy?
August 6th, 2006 at 8:49 pm#83 Joe Friday
The best response you could argue to is the calvanist statement? Aphodite was pretty on point with what she was saying. but i guess to validate the argument you have to think outside of being emotional and use a little logic. It seems to me the left has an obsesison with “feelings.” it feels good to take from the “rich” (whatever the definition “rich” is) and give to those who didn’t earn it…
August 8th, 2006 at 1:42 pmmay i suggest this from Thomas Sowell today about the minimum wage bein graised in Chicago?
I live in Chicago which is particularly relevant….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ articles/ 2006/ 08/ a_glimmer_of_hope.html
….The economic consequence of political largess — whether in the form of minimum wage laws or medical or other benefits mandated to be paid for by employers — is to make labor artificially more expensive.
Countries with generous employee benefits mandated by law — Germany and France, for example — have chronically higher unemployment rates than unemployment rates in the United States, where jobs are created at a far higher rate than in Europe.
There is no free lunch. Higher labor costs mean fewer jobs.
Since all workers do not have the same skill or experience, minimum wage laws have more impact on some than on others. Young, inexperienced and unskilled workers are especially likely to find it harder to get a job when wage rates have been set higher than the value of their productivity.
In France, where the national unemployment rate is 10 percent, the unemployment rate among workers less than 26 years old is 23 percent. Among young people from the Muslim minority, the unemployment rate is even higher.
In the United States, the group hardest hit by minimum wage laws are black male teenagers. Those who refuse to admit that the minimum wage is the reason for high unemployment rates among young blacks blame racism, lack of education and whatever else occurs to them.
The hard facts say otherwise. Back in the 1940s, there was no less racism than today and black teenagers had no more education than today, but their unemployment rate was a fraction of what it is now — and was no different from that of white teenagers.
What was different back then? Although there was a minimum wage law on the books, the inflation of that era had raised wage rates well above the specified minimum, which had remained unchanged for years.
August 8th, 2006 at 2:18 pmYesssssssss the Senate finally grew a set, unlike the House. This bill was such a turkey. Not only was the Estate tax repealed, the really dispicable part of the bill was that “TIP EARNERS” would loose their minimum wage protection, and might even earn less of a paycheck!!! The tips would compensate, the customer would then be in place to subsidise the establishment’s plans for slave wages. This is the topic of my cartoon thats probably not in a weekly paper near you, I’m trying. see it at my website;
August 9th, 2006 at 4:50 amhttp://www.whatnowtoons.com
Yesssssssss the Senate finally grew a set, unlike the House. This bill was such a turkey. Not only was the Estate tax repealed, the really despicable part of the bill was that “TIP EARNERS†would loose their minimum wage protection, and might even earn less of a paycheck!!! The tips would compensate, the customer would then be in place to subsidize the establishment’s plans for slave wages. This is the topic of my cartoon that’s probably not in a weekly paper near you, I’m trying. see it at my website;
August 9th, 2006 at 4:52 amhttp://www.whatnowtoons.com
Someone should TAKE THESE GUYS OUT! I mean it, really, take these guys out!!!!
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 pmAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 10:52 pmJessie
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 20th, 2008 at 4:52 amLudovic
One should guard against preaching to young people success in the customary form as the main aim in life. The most important motive for work in school and in life is pleasure in work, pleasure in its result and the knowledge of the value of the result …
March 21st, 2008 at 2:20 amInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 amPayroll Accounting Services
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:25 amPeter
Traditionally, reviewers would remain anonymous to the authors, but this standard is slowly changing. Published papers sometimes
March 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pmPay Day Loans
Hows bastnasite no fax payday loans for Milkmen
March 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 8:52 pmCash Advance Companies For Business
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:10 amWhere To Retire New England
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pmPreteen Preteen Model Galleries Pre-Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm