NationStates Jolt Archive

No price floor? So you wouldnt have a problem being hired for $2/hr?
Yes I would, but that's because my labor is worth more than $2 an hour. According to this logic, everyone should be earning minimum wage, because according to you wages will constantly fall untill they hit a price floor defined by the government.

and you routinely steal the things you give as birthday gifts?
What are you suggesting? That someone who works for their money has "stolen" it?

You apparently have never lived in Montana. At least a third of my home town work at minimum wage or just above it. These are people with families, not teenagers living at home.
Well my suggestion would be for people to not have families they can't support, as opposed to relying on government to force their employers to pay them more to support their family.

In point of fact, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that one excellent way of slowing illegal immigration is to increase unemployment. That would, ceteris parabus, increase the number of legal workers competing for jobs with illegals. Unless, of course, we were to assume that all things in the business world are not equal. . .
A raise in minimum wage would just encourage illegal immigrants, as employees would be more inclined to pay immigrants "under the table" as it becomes less profitable to legally hire local workers.

Ever heard of government corruption? Both direct and indirect? Earmarks, by which the government can concentrate its power by funneling money for pet projects to their respective Congressional districts?

Because America was built on the concepts of self-determination and limited government. The estate tax violates both those principles.



Actually, my rights to my property are far stronger than those of the government according to our Constitution:
Amendment IV:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..."
(Many believe, myself included, that the estate tax is an unreasonable "seizure").

Amendment V:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Though this has, admittedly, been stretched to the limit by recent SCOTUS rulings.

And my favorites:

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Like retaining my right to designate where my estate goes.

Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So even if it weren't already spelled out, seems to me I should be able to retain my power to designate my heirs.
If it something politicians have learned, it's that you should never let the facts, nor the constitution, get in your way. If it's inconvenient to you and your selfish, self-serving ways, ignore it.

Reduced to whining from the sideline.

sidelines? mate, the game is over and your team lost. embarassingly. you know, back when you were shown to just be making shit up...repeatedly.

A democratic government is a legitimate representative of society, however.

or at least can be one - depending on how its democratic institutions are arranged.

sidelines?
Yep. You got pummeled into the ground. You're so far gone, you've been waived. They couldn't even put you on injured reserve.

Now stop being a coward and either participate properly or STFU.

welcome back, sports fans. we're taking a look at some highlights from yesterday's match.


Even the article you posted contradicts that notion.
But it doesn't. I'd appreciate if you stopped lying.
Most of those who make minimum wage are teenagers who live at home.

About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and slightly more than one-fourth were age 16-19.

You're laughable.

ouch, that's gotta hurt

demonstrate the irrelevantness of the distinction made between the privileges of the living and the dead when it comes to property.So show me why it's such a different type of gift.'cause the giver is fucking dead?
Irrelevant

a truly valiant effort on the part of team baawa against incredible odds - unfortunately, they just couldn't pull it off in the end. they have, however, been nominated for this summer's cornies, where they will face off against luminaries such as the barrygoldwaters and the reigning champions (and award namesakes) team corneliu.

welcome back, sports fans. we're taking a look at some highlights from yesterday's match.
You mean the one where you got kicked around so badly that you ran off limping to the sidelines and then took potshots from there? Yeah. that's the one.

Poor troll. You may want to watch out, lest the mods forumban you for a day or two for trolling.

welcome back, sports fans. we're taking a look at some highlights from yesterday's match.


You ignore the real arguments about the minimum wage and assume because he got a fact wrong you won the argument. Then state you don't value the freedom for an individual to spend/pass on the money he's made through out his own life without the state getting involved.

Great highlights.

welcome back, sports fans. we're taking a look at some highlights from yesterday's match.



ouch, that's gotta hurt



a truly valiant effort on the part of team baawa against incredible odds - unfortunately, they just couldn't pull it off in the end. they have, however, been nominated for this summer's cornies, where they will face off against luminaries such as the barrygoldwaters and the reigning champions (and award namesakes) team corneliu.
Oh come-on how does your post add anything to the discussion … I disagree with both of your points of view on some levels but this is nothing but wasting space with baiting.

You ignore the real arguments about the minimum wage and assume because he got a fact wrong you won the argument.

it's not that he got a fact wrong - anybody can do that. it's that he denied he got it wrong, denied that his own source disagreed with with him, and claimed that any claim to the contrary is all lies that makes him lose. and puts him in the running for a corny.

besides, there was no real argument about the minimum wage even going on at that point.

and you don't see the ridiculousness of responding to a request to demonstrate the the irrelevantness of the distinction between the living and the dead by merely repeating that they think it is irrelevant?

Oh come-on how does your post add anything to the discussion

its a public service to demonstrate that it isn't really worth it to try discussing things with baawa. we can now get back to the discussion at hand, if anyone cares to.

it's not that he got a fact wrong - anybody can do that. it's that he denied he got it wrong, denied that his own source disagreed with with him, and claimed that any claim to the contrary is all lies that makes him lose. and puts him in the running for a corny.
Except none of those things happened. You are dangerously close to flamebaiting. The mods won't like that.


besides, there was no real argument about the minimum wage even going on at that point.
But there was.

and you don't see the ridiculousness of responding to a request to demonstrate the the irrelevantness of the distinction between the living and the dead by merely repeating that they think it is irrelevant?

In this case the freedom to give/leave your money to someone shouldn't make a difference between if your still alive or dead, as long it was your own money.
But I agree his one word replies with little or no justification have irritated me too :p

In this case the freedom to give/leave your money to someone shouldn't make a difference between if your still alive or dead, as long it was your own money.

well, the meat of the difference is that this society does not recognize a natural right of inheritance, nor a natural right for the dead to own property and do with it whatever they wish(ed) - and certainly not an absolute right. such things happen entirely at the discretion of society, subject to it's rules. to quote an old supreme court case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=625),

"While the laws of all civilized states recognize in every citizen the absolute right to his own earnings, and to the enjoyment of his own property, and the increase thereof, during his life, except so far as the state may require him to contribute his share for public expenses, the right to dispose of his property by will has always been considered purely a creature of statute, and within legislative control."

or as another one (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=170&invol=283) put it,

"1. An inheritance tax is not one on property, but one on the succession.
2. The right to take property by devise or descent is the creature of the law, and not a natural right-a privilege; and therefore the authority which confers it may impose conditions upon it.
From these principles it is deduced that the states may tax the privilege, discriminate between relatives, and between these and strangers, and grant exemptions; and are not precluded from this power by the provisions of the respective state constitutions requiring uniformity and equality of taxation."

well, the meat of the difference is that this society does not recognize a natural right of inheritance, nor a natural right for the dead to own property and do with it whatever they wish(ed) - and certainly not an absolute right. such things happen entirely at the discretion of society, subject to it's rules. to quote an old supreme court case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=163&invol=625),
An old Supreme Court case once had a ruling of "separate, but equal" as well.

Why should it go to anyone who didn't earn it? All eliminating the inheritance tax does is permit those lucky enough to have been born to rich families to become even more privileged at the expense of everyone else.
Why do you say they didn't earn it? Inheritance doesn't automatically pass to offspring - the dead guy has to decide to give his money away. It's a gift like any other, and the recipient is chosen based on criteria that matter to the giver.

That aside, yes, I would support taxing gifts of large monetary value.
Alright, then. What counts as a gift? If you're going to tax gifts, you need to be able to define "gift". Otherwise, you'll have to examine each trade that happens in society to determine whether it's unbalanced enough to count as a gift.

Because I support democracy over the elitist domination of the rich. If society can't regulate concentrated property, those who control the most property will dominate society.
So you support the power of the majority to vote itself benefits at the expense of a minority. What's next? Thought crimes? Ethnic purity? If the majority has that kind of power, the majority will use that kind of power.

Proof?

The proof is provided by the fact that capitalization is the easiest way to pass on assets to the benefits of accumulated wealth from one generation to the next. Coupled with the fact that the inheritance tax raises very little revenue for the government.

*creaaaaaaaaak*

And the door to the crypt is forced open...

*creaaaaaaaaak*

And the door to the crypt is forced open...

I'll grab the stake and holy water!