NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage_estate_tax;_ylt=Au9UUafCxpBRtt2GXg2DEJCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

...The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage...

...Democrats could have voted against the bill, thus rejecting a minimum wage. Or, they could have voted for the bill, thus supporting a tax cut on large estates...


With the exception of Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Democcrat Senators are more concerned with tax revenues than they are with helping the lowest earning wage earners.

Think about that - when it comes time to choose they would rather vote to take money from people who can afford it than they would to give money to those who need it. It shows you their priority is not helping the poor at all. The see the poor as pawns - to be pandered to only so long as the Democrats get to keep their power and big spending. When they get a chance to help the poor their answer is a unified "Screw you! We need our tax revenue!" When given a golden opportunity to do something they choose to spite the taxpayer than help the poor. What jerks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage_estate_tax;_ylt=Au9UUafCxpBRtt2GXg2DEJCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

...The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage...

...Democrats could have voted against the bill, thus rejecting a minimum wage. Or, they could have voted for the bill, thus supporting a tax cut on large estates...


With the exception of Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Democcrat Senators are more concerned with tax revenues than they are with helping the lowest earning wage earners.

Think about that - when it comes time to choose they would rather vote to take money from people who can afford it than they would to give money to those who need it. It shows you their priority is not helping the poor at all. The see the poor as pawns - to be pandered to only so long as the Democrats get to keep their power and big spending. When they get a chance to help the poor their answer is a unified "Screw you! We need our tax revenue!" When given a golden opportunity to do something they choose to spite the taxpayer than help the poor. What jerks.

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.


Actually, you're both wrong.

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.

Ahh - so then you admit then that raising the minimum wage is really unimportant and useless to American workers or the economy?

Yet you fail to justify how taking money from anyone is beneficial...

Your argument is empty and weak.

Actually, you're both wrong.


LOL!! You, sir, are fucking brilliant! How do you contain such intellect?

Nah, B0zzy--what the Democrats showed was that the Republicans don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility. Instead of giving the minimum wage a straight up or down vote--Republicans were sure in favor of that on judicial nominations, weren't they?--they tied it to yet another tax cut for those who need it least, all while we're running massive deficits and funding an unnecessary and unaffordable war. Republicans proved that there is no level to which they won't stoop to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor stay fucked.

And Squatches, if your argument is accurate, if prices go up at the same rate as the mininum wage does when it's raised, then it ought to be easy enough to find backup for it outside some right-wing think tank. So find it. The fact is that what you describe doesn't happen. Prices may go up slightly, but not enough to offset the increase in wages. Meanwhile, economic activity goes up because the people at the bottom of the economic barrel have money they didn't have before, and they spend it--they're not at the point where they can afford to save.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage_estate_tax;_ylt=Au9UUafCxpBRtt2GXg2DEJCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

...The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage...

...Democrats could have voted against the bill, thus rejecting a minimum wage. Or, they could have voted for the bill, thus supporting a tax cut on large estates...


With the exception of Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Democcrat Senators are more concerned with tax revenues than they are with helping the lowest earning wage earners.

Think about that - when it comes time to choose they would rather vote to take money from people who can afford it than they would to give money to those who need it. It shows you their priority is not helping the poor at all. The see the poor as pawns - to be pandered to only so long as the Democrats get to keep their power and big spending. When they get a chance to help the poor their answer is a unified "Screw you! We need our tax revenue!" When given a golden opportunity to do something they choose to spite the taxpayer than help the poor. What jerks.


It's a little dishonest to tell half a story, isn't it?

The original Democrat idea would have pushed an increase that was NOT incremental - it is already compromised in allowing employers three years of 70cent increases (which wouldn't even cover the current inflation in gas prices).

The Republicans compromised the idea further, when they made their unpopular 'tax-breaks-for-the-rich' clause one of the bill items... and it IS purely for the rich - we are talking about a tax that ONLY affects estates worth multiple millions of dollars.

But - perhaps the most important fact, and the reason why Democrats MUST vote against any kind of compromise bill, now - is that Bush has a number of mechanisms at his disposal to pervert this bill.. to ONLY serve the 'tax-breaks' function, and ignore the original intent.

First - this president may not use many full vetoes, but he DOES make extensive use of 'signing statements'... a mechanism by which he can appear to be signing legislation, whilst simultaneously pointing out that he intends NOT to support or enforce parts of it.

Secondly - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has ALREADY passed a partial line-item-veto proposal for this President - allowing him to push legislation back to Congress to address 'spending' issues.

A one-two combination that means, Democrats could put all the effort they want into supporting this kind of legislation, only to have it first compromised (by incremental application, and by Republican riders), and then gutted - leaving ONLY the Republican riders as operational law.

LOL!! You, sir, are fucking brilliant! How do you contain such intellect?


You mean, enough wit to spot econo-schlock?

It isn't worth debunking.

If either of you had so answered a testpaper in, say, Economy101 at UCLA or even some Uni in Texarkana, you'd have gotten either a D or an F. A 'D' if the staff were being nice...

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.

Not to mention his conclusion is bullshit.

It's Republicans who don't care about the poor. They were the ones who attached the Wage increase to the repeal of the estate tax. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but Republicans want to screw us all over in exchange. Republicans, one's like the OP in particular, are really a sickening bunch of moral and logical perverts.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage_estate_tax;_ylt=Au9UUafCxpBRtt2GXg2DEJCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

...The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage...

...Democrats could have voted against the bill, thus rejecting a minimum wage. Or, they could have voted for the bill, thus supporting a tax cut on large estates...


With the exception of Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Democcrat Senators are more concerned with tax revenues than they are with helping the lowest earning wage earners.

Think about that - when it comes time to choose they would rather vote to take money from people who can afford it than they would to give money to those who need it. It shows you their priority is not helping the poor at all. The see the poor as pawns - to be pandered to only so long as the Democrats get to keep their power and big spending. When they get a chance to help the poor their answer is a unified "Screw you! We need our tax revenue!" When given a golden opportunity to do something they choose to spite the taxpayer than help the poor. What jerks.

I love it! Republicans attach a Paris Hilton tax-cut to a bill that is meant to help the working class, thereby ensuring more of the reckless spending that is bankrupting the country...and when Democrats object it is held up as proof that they hate the poor.

Yep, you heard it here first: anybody who wants to have a balanced budget and a living minimum wage is clearly somebody who hates the poor. Also, war is peace and slavery is freedom.

The Democrats love to USE the poor. So do the Repubs. Neither party actually gives a damn, except that the Dems try harder to fool the poor into thinking that they care.

Nah, B0zzy--what the Democrats showed was that the Republicans don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility. Instead of giving the minimum wage a straight up or down vote--Republicans were sure in favor of that on judicial nominations, weren't they?--they tied it to yet another tax cut for those who need it least, all while we're running massive deficits and funding an unnecessary and unaffordable war. Republicans proved that there is no level to which they won't stoop to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor stay fucked.

And Squatches, if your argument is accurate, if prices go up at the same rate as the mininum wage does when it's raised, then it ought to be easy enough to find backup for it outside some right-wing think tank. So find it. The fact is that what you describe doesn't happen. Prices may go up slightly, but not enough to offset the increase in wages. Meanwhile, economic activity goes up because the people at the bottom of the economic barrel have money they didn't have before, and they spend it--they're not at the point where they can afford to save.

You won't get any argument from me about the lack of fiscal responsibility of BOTH parties. However your point about Republicans not wanting to help the poor is pretty far off considering they are prepared to increate the minimum wage 50%. That is not the point - the point is that when given a choice Democrats would rather collect tax than increase income to the poor. There is no other interpretation.

I love it! Republicans attach a Paris Hilton tax-cut to a bill that is meant to help the working class, thereby ensuring more of the reckless spending that is bankrupting the country...and when Democrats object it is held up as proof that they hate the poor.

Yep, you heard it here first: anybody who wants to have a balanced budget and a living minimum wage is clearly somebody who hates the poor. Also, war is peace and slavery is freedom.Ah, but sadly, ignorance really is strength :(

It's a little dishonest to tell half a story, isn't it?

The original Democrat idea would have pushed an increase that was NOT incremental - it is already compromised in allowing employers three years of 70cent increases (which wouldn't even cover the current inflation in gas prices).

The Republicans compromised the idea further, when they made their unpopular 'tax-breaks-for-the-rich' clause one of the bill items... and it IS purely for the rich - we are talking about a tax that ONLY affects estates worth multiple millions of dollars.

But - perhaps the most important fact, and the reason why Democrats MUST vote against any kind of compromise bill, now - is that Bush has a number of mechanisms at his disposal to pervert this bill.. to ONLY serve the 'tax-breaks' function, and ignore the original intent.

First - this president may not use many full vetoes, but he DOES make extensive use of 'signing statements'... a mechanism by which he can appear to be signing legislation, whilst simultaneously pointing out that he intends NOT to support or enforce parts of it.

Secondly - The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has ALREADY passed a partial line-item-veto proposal for this President - allowing him to push legislation back to Congress to address 'spending' issues.

A one-two combination that means, Democrats could put all the effort they want into supporting this kind of legislation, only to have it first compromised (by incremental application, and by Republican riders), and then gutted - leaving ONLY the Republican riders as operational law.

Your definition of 'rich' is lacking. Finding a home worth $1mil is not uncommon these days and it willonly become more common. With the current rate of inflation and self-directed retirement accounts most young people will retire with at least $1 mil in assets. Without you defining rich pointing out that taxing an estate to fund a bloated budget is quite irresponsible no matter who is paying the tax. The government is the worst way to spend one's money.

The rest of your rant pretty much sums up your ignorance ofr executive power and is not really worthy of a response.

You mean, enough wit to spot econo-schlock?

It isn't worth debunking.

If either of you had so answered a testpaper in, say, Economy101 at UCLA or even some Uni in Texarkana, you'd have gotten either a D or an F. A 'D' if the staff were being nice...


And he does it again! He says absloutely nothing and still considers himself an intellectual giant! Tell me - are you more ignorant or delusional? It's hard to tell by what you posted.

Not to mention his conclusion is bullshit.

It's Republicans who don't care about the poor. They were the ones who attached the Wage increase to the repeal of the estate tax. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but Republicans want to screw us all over in exchange. Republicans, one's like the OP in particular, are really a sickening bunch of moral and logical perverts.


Dream on - they have no issue with raising the minimum wage in order to secure tax cuts - the democrates however don't feel that helping the poor is worth it. Shows you where their priorities are.

And since when does cutting someone elses tax screw you? You are never in the formula. You don't give or recieve.

I love it! Republicans attach a Paris Hilton tax-cut to a bill that is meant to help the working class, thereby ensuring more of the reckless spending that is bankrupting the country...and when Democrats object it is held up as proof that they hate the poor.

Yep, you heard it here first: anybody who wants to have a balanced budget and a living minimum wage is clearly somebody who hates the poor. Also, war is peace and slavery is freedom.
AH yes - the good old fasioned class envy argument. Nothing more effective than jealousy in making your point.

There is more than one way to balance a budget. Democrats are incapable of recognizing that. Meanwhile - raising the minimum wage costs congress nothing. The estate tak is barely a blip on the tax radar. Democrats obviously care more about the blip than they do about the poor.

The Democrats love to USE the poor. So do the Repubs. Neither party actually gives a damn, except that the Dems try harder to fool the poor into thinking that they care.


You know the people who care most about the poor and the ones most likely to do something about it?

THE POOR!

Welcome to the forum. Glad to see you have discovered the transparency of both parties.

Ah, but you're all wrong. The Democrats care plenty about the poor, but it has nothing to do with economic welfare. It's about votes -- that's all, just votes. If the Democrats can maintain the kind of class envy that they have created with demogogery over minimum wages, inheritance taxes, welfare, etc, then they will continue to hold on to votes of the poorest and most ignorant among us.

Your definition of 'rich' is lacking. Finding a home worth $1mil is not uncommon these days and it willonly become more common. With the current rate of inflation and self-directed retirement accounts most young people will retire with at least $1 mil in assets. Without you defining rich pointing out that taxing an estate to fund a bloated budget is quite irresponsible no matter who is paying the tax. The government is the worst way to spend one's money.

The rest of your rant pretty much sums up your ignorance ofr executive power and is not really worthy of a response.

You thought that a rant? How odd.

How about you explain to me where I am ignorant, then... the way I see it, you hadn't considered line-item vetoes (or didn't notice they existed), or signing statements - and thus have no argument to defend against them.

My definition of 'rich' may be lacking, but only in as much as it is not DESIGNED to be specific. On the contrary - you seem unaware of even the ballpark threshhold at which these taxbreaks are aimed - even to the extent that you keep pushing this '$1 million in assets' idea (which I don't see you supporting).

The point is - the estate tax wouldn't AFFECT one million in assets, whether it is active, or relieved by the like of this Republican cryptic rider.

As for finding a home that is worth a million these days - MOST homes are not worth a million. MOST new homes don't sell for a million. Million dollar homes ARE uncommon. I'd like to see your evidence that suggests otherwise. You must have a very loose definition of 'uncommon'.


Last point - you are going to have to explain what you mean by "Without you defining rich pointing out that taxing an estate to fund a bloated budget is quite irresponsible no matter who is paying the tax. The government is the worst way to spend one's money."

You seem to be saying that pointing something out is irresponsible... and I honestly can't read this paragraph to make sense. If you want to re-engineer it, I'll attempt to address it.

As for the last line - that I could get - "The government is the worst way to spend one's money"... but I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes, government spending is a far preferable way to spend... compare, for example, 'socialised' medicine in the UK or Canada, with 'private' healthcare in the US. Everyone NEEDS healthcare, and yet, the nation which opposes the 'socialised' model as inefficient and corrupt - actually spends MORE, on a national scale AND individually.


But - if you feel you can't respond to the whole - the part I really want to see you address is my 'ignorance' of the executive process... I want you to explain to me how line-item-vetoes might NOT impact this situation, and I'd like to see where you think I misunderstand the abuse of signing statements... since legislation HAS been discussed this very year, to try to curb the 'abuses' of signing statements, under this president.

Dream on - they have no issue with raising the minimum wage in order to secure tax cuts - the democrates however don't feel that helping the poor is worth it. Shows you where their priorities are.

And since when does cutting someone elses tax screw you? You are never in the formula. You don't give or recieve.

Actually - Republicans have continuously blocked a 'minimum wage' hike. The simple fact that they are willing to see it pass with this particular rider, should be sending alarm bells ringing.

Perhaps it is worth pointing out - the Democrats are not saying they don't want to see the minimum wage legislation passed... they just don't want to see THIS BILL passed.

If they kill this version, with the Republican cryptic rider, they can then push another bill... and maybe get it to the floor without Republican compromises.

It's Republicans who don't care about the poor. They were the ones who attached the Wage increase to the repeal of the estate tax. Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but Republicans want to screw us all over in exchange. Republicans, one's like the OP in particular, are really a sickening bunch of moral and logical perverts.
Both parties are made of über-rich elites who don't care about the majority.

AH yes - the good old fasioned class envy argument. Nothing more effective than jealousy in making your point.

There is more than one way to balance a budget. Democrats are incapable of recognizing that. Meanwhile - raising the minimum wage costs congress nothing. The estate tak is barely a blip on the tax radar. Democrats obviously care more about the blip than they do about the poor.

Perhaps you would like to explain how the current year-on-year increase in deficit emphasises your argument?

It appears that there is ONLY one way to balance a budget... your income has to exceed (or, at least equal) your expenditure. Looking at the huge increases in national debt under this incarnation of the Republican party - I'm NOT convinced this is the government to preach to us about balanced budgets.

And since when does cutting someone elses tax screw you? You are never in the formula. You don't give or recieve.
Leaves trhe government with less money to fund the services I use.

Ah, but you're all wrong. The Democrats care plenty about the poor, but it has nothing to do with economic welfare. It's about votes -- that's all, just votes. If the Democrats can maintain the kind of class envy that they have created with demogogery over minimum wages, inheritance taxes, welfare, etc, then they will continue to hold on to votes of the poorest and most ignorant among us.

You equate poor with ignorant? Curious assertion - I wonder where you think you should be placed, yourself, in the spectrum?

You are right - the Democrats court the working-class vote... they present themselves as more of a 'people's party'... but I'm not sure why you seem to consider this such a bad thing. Republicans currently sell themselves as friends of the biggest business interests, and a party that favours the rich... it is hardly surprising that Democrats fill some of the vacuum.

As for the 'class envy' argument... I believe you are creating an illusion of the truth. Is it 'class envy' that makes a 'poor' voter prefer the Democrat agenda over the Republican, when one party offers to boost the minimum wage, and the other proposes removing aid from those who are most needy?

Sounds like pragmatism to me... and I'd say 'class envy' is your Appeal to Emotion terminology to try to make pragmatism sound like a bad thing.

Some people listen to way too much Rush, or is it Sean? Let's give a massive Permanent steak to the rich and a bone to the poor and then boo hoo for the poor if it doesn't pass.

You want a deal....a temporary cut in estate tax attached to an increase in minimum wage to the buying power of 1979 with a Permanent tie of minimum wage to the cost of living.

Whoever votes for it cares for the poor.

Nah, B0zzy--what the Democrats showed was that the Republicans don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility. Instead of giving the minimum wage a straight up or down vote--Republicans were sure in favor of that on judicial nominations, weren't they?--they tied it to yet another tax cut for those who need it least, all while we're running massive deficits and funding an unnecessary and unaffordable war. Republicans proved that there is no level to which they won't stoop to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor stay fucked.

And Squatches, if your argument is accurate, if prices go up at the same rate as the mininum wage does when it's raised, then it ought to be easy enough to find backup for it outside some right-wing think tank. So find it. The fact is that what you describe doesn't happen. Prices may go up slightly, but not enough to offset the increase in wages. Meanwhile, economic activity goes up because the people at the bottom of the economic barrel have money they didn't have before, and they spend it--they're not at the point where they can afford to save.

Both this post, and the post about perminantly linking minimum wage to cost of living are two of the most intelligent I've seen here for a while.

And to answer B0zzy's critism as to why the Dem's voted this down - it's because it was a bad idea. If the proposal was "we'll double minimum wage IF every poor person cuts their legs off" then it wouldn't really help the poor in the long run. Neither did this idea. The Dem's are just holding out for something better.

Of course they want tax money though, they're the lesser of two evils - not a moral and just political party in it to serve their people.

Actually - Republicans have continuously blocked a 'minimum wage' hike. The simple fact that they are willing to see it pass with this particular rider, should be sending alarm bells ringing.
Hmmm...my first thought upon reading that bill was, 'why is estate tax tied in with minimum wage'?
There's no connection nor comparison between the two.

They concern two completely seperate groups in society and as such, should be seperate bills which can be debated on their own merits seperately.

All it seems to me is an attempt by GOP to either force through a bill they want (the estate tax) or when it fails have the ammunition to accuse the Dems of 'hating the poor', cause they 'don't' want to raise the minimum wage.

I see Bozzy fell for it. No doubt Fox and every other right-wing pundit will too.

Guess it's gearing up to election time again and GOP, having seen how successful the Kerry 'flip-flop-voted-for-then-against' smear tactic worked, is preparing itself to launch another barrage of half-truths and lies upon that which will be picked up and parrotted by evety right-wing apologist out there.


Can hardly wait.


No doubt the next bill will be 'massive tax cut for the rich and aren't kittens and babies cute?'.
What?
They voted against the bill?
Dems don't think kittens and babies are cute!
The bastards!

Who ever said they did? Them? Fuck them.

Hmmm...my first thought upon reading that bill was, 'why is estate tax tied in with minimum wage'?
There's no connection nor comparison between the two.

They concern two completely seperate groups in society and as such, should be seperate bills which can be debated on their own merits seperately.

All it seems to me is an attempt by GOP to either force through a bill they want (the estate tax) or when it fails have the ammunition to accuse the Dems of 'hating the poor', cause they 'don't' want to raise the minimum wage.

I see Bozzy fell for it. No doubt Fox and every other right-wing pundit will too.

Guess it's gearing up to election time again and GOP, having seen how successful the Kerry 'flip-flop-voted-for-then-against' smear tactic worked, is preparing itself to launch another barrage of half-truths and lies upon that which will be picked up and parrotted by evety right-wing apologist out there.


Can hardly wait.


No doubt the next bill will be 'massive tax cut for the rich and aren't kittens and babies cute?'.
What?
They voted against the bill?
Dems don't think kittens and babies are cute!
The bastards!

Repeating the Republican party talking points doesn't mean he fell for anything, it just means he automatically believes all his Furer says.

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.

I'm getting the general impession that nobody cares about the poor. I'm still waiting for the announcement that 'It's official- The poor don't care about the poor'

If the either party cared about the poor, they'd be addressing the massive deficits that are fueling some of the inflation that erodes the purchasing power of the poor. The estate tax cut could easily be paid for if spending were cut or even slown to a rate below the growth in tax revenues.

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.

Yes clearly being born into a rich family (inheritence tax) means you're automatically smarter!

You sir are too stupid to live, please find the nearest exit to the gene pool and use it enthusiastically.

Yes clearly being born into a rich family (inheritence tax) means you're automatically smarter!

You sir are too stupid to live, please find the nearest exit to the gene pool and use it enthusiastically.
Advocating someone go commit suicide is hardly the way to win arguments. It's pretty assinine too.

No one yet has shown how the government has any legitimate right to take someone's properties/lands just because they were unlucky enough to die.

Advocating someone go commit suicide is hardly the way to win arguments. It's pretty assinine too.

No one yet has shown how the government has any legitimate right to take someone's properties/lands just because they were unlucky enough to die.

Chastity is an exit of the gene pool too. Interesting how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was advocating suicide.

So is castration.

So is castration.

Okay, I take it back, he probably was advocating something generally more unpleasant than chastity.

So is castration.

Self-castration usually kills you. :eek:

Chastity is an exit of the gene pool too. Interesting how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that he was advocating suicide.
(self removal from the gene pool)+("too stupid to live") = suicide

That's what my brain understood. Perhaps I did jump a bit too much.

Okay, look ... how long have the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? If they cared to raise the minimum wage it would have been done years ago. Instead their agenda has been reducing taxes on higher income people and on eliminating the estate tax. Attaching the rider to this bill was an election year posion pill of the most obvious kind. I just hope the people see it for what it is and that the Democrats grow some vertebrae, enough to point it out. I'm not very optimistic, though, because I'm sure in a month or so this will be lost in the haze of horror stories about gay Islamofascists forcing chruches to marry them at gun-point before blowing themselves up on the steps of city hall in Anytown, USA. O tempora, o mores.

You know what we need? A federal law preventing the combining of more than one movement in a single bill.

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.
You mean like the Hilton sisters and any other child of a billionaire entrepreneur.

You know what we need? A federal law preventing the combining of more than one movement in a single bill.

It would be great to eliminate riders but neither party wants to give up the opportunity to score political points with their constituents. It's easier to slap that tax cut, pork project, or entitlement fund on to a mandantory military appropriations bill than to try and argue for it in a conventional bill.

Ironically, any bill limiting riders would have ones attached to it that render the bill useless.

No one yet has shown how the government has any legitimate right to take someone's properties/lands just because they were unlucky enough to die.
And no one can argue what entitles people to even own property in the first place. You can only argue what works. Allowing people to own things based on their talents, luck and hard work makes them happy and productive. Allowing those who have done nothing to earn their wealth to keep most of it makes the successful people feel secure that their fortunes will not be taken away. However, taking some of that money allows for the government, through agencies controlled by either public or private interests, to assist the untalented, luckless, and possibly less hard working individuals, if not simply to ease their wretched lives and nurture a happy productive working class, then to placate them, so that they do not, one day, take by force the things they need and/or want.

And no one can argue what entitles people to even own property in the first place. You can only argue what works. Allowing people to own things based on their talents, luck and hard work makes them happy and productive. Allowing those who have done nothing to earn their wealth to keep most of it makes the successful people feel secure that their fortunes will not be taken away. However, taking some of that money allows for the government, through agencies controlled by either public or private interests, to assist the untalented, luckless, and possibly less hard working individuals, if not simply to ease their wretched lives and nurture a happy productive working class, then to placate them, so that they do not, one day, take by force the things they need and/or want.
On the contrary. Someone has argued about owning personal property. It was done and decided by better minds than ours that people should be secure in their property. I have the right to own property and I should have the right to see it disposed of as I see fit. If I want to leave it to a house full of cats then I should be able to do that. If I want to leave it to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation I should be able to do that. If I wish to leave it to my children, by what right do you or anyone else tell me no?

On, and one part of your post warrents particular attention
to placate them, so that they do not, one day, take by force the things they need and/or want Do you really belive this? Do you really believe that in order to prevent crime, we should just give them what they want in the first place? So if I really want a 61" LCD HDTV and I just might commit some crime to get it, the government should give it to me to prevent that future crime?

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.

Paris Hilton is no smarter than a soapdish. No offense to the soapdish.

Paris Hilton is no smarter than a soapdish. No offense to the soapdish.
Which has no bearing on whether her family should be allowed to leave their money to her.

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.
Look, I can understand getting annoyed at the way some people assume all rich folks are greedy bastards. We all know that there are rich people who have earned every dime they've got, who are smart and kind and talented, and who aren't trying to fuck over the working man.

But, at the same time, it is equally stupid to say that anybody who is rich must be smarter or better or whatever. There are plenty of people who have lots of money despite the fact that they are dumber than rocks. There are plenty of people who get rich off being stupid, as a matter of fact. There are some awful people who get awful rich.

Rich people are no different than any other demographic; there are good rich people and lousy rich people. There are smart rich people and there are stupid rich people. Being rich doesn't make you inherently smarter or stupider than anybody else...it just means that you're richer.

Nah, B0zzy--what the Democrats showed was that the Republicans don't give a shit about fiscal responsibility. Instead of giving the minimum wage a straight up or down vote--Republicans were sure in favor of that on judicial nominations, weren't they?--they tied it to yet another tax cut for those who need it least, all while we're running massive deficits and funding an unnecessary and unaffordable war. Republicans proved that there is no level to which they won't stoop to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor stay fucked.

Because the Republican party is deliberately enacting policies for the sole purpose of screwing the little guy. :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I despise both parties. But what you said is pretty dumb.

Democrats don't care about poor people!
-I expect the above statement to carry further than Kanye West's "George Bush doesn't care about black people" quote

Which has no bearing on whether her family should be allowed to leave their money to her.

They can. But that counts as income. And if my income is getting taxed, so is yours.

What I said was to counter the argument that "Oh theyre rich they must be smarter than you and worthy of earning their keep"

Look, I can understand getting annoyed at the way some people assume all rich folks are greedy bastards. We all know that there are rich people who have earned every dime they've got, who are smart and kind and talented, and who aren't trying to fuck over the working man.

But, at the same time, it is equally stupid to say that anybody who is rich must be smarter or better or whatever. There are plenty of people who have lots of money despite the fact that they are dumber than rocks. There are plenty of people who get rich off being stupid, as a matter of fact. There are some awful people who get awful rich.

Rich people are no different than any other demographic; there are good rich people and lousy rich people. There are smart rich people and there are stupid rich people. Being rich doesn't make you inherently smarter or stupider than anybody else...it just means that you're richer.


If it wouldn't e such a bureaucratic nightmare, I would advocate taking money from those who didn't earn it and making them wear burlap clothing and toss them on the streets, and then give the money to those who are working and still can't afford basic necessities.

But that involves a big government, which is by nature inefficient. :(

Which has no bearing on whether her family should be allowed to leave their money to her.
I don't think he was claiming that her stupidity is grounds for taking away her money. I think he was simply pointing out that it's silly to claim all rich people are smarter than all poor people.

But yes, you're right, we aren't allowed to take Paris' money just because she's stupid or selfish or whatever else we might think of her. As long as she acquired her fortune legally, and as long as she spends it legally, we don't get to take it away just because we dislike what she chooses to do with it.

If it wouldn't e such a bureaucratic nightmare, I would advocate taking money from those who didn't earn it and making them wear burlap clothing and toss them on the streets, and then give the money to those who are working and still can't afford basic necessities.

But that involves a big government, which is by nature inefficient. :(
I can't agree with you on that one. I believe that the money I earn during my lifetime is mine, and that includes my right to decide who I want to give it to when I die. I don't believe somebody else (who did not earn my money) has the right to swoop in and make that decision for me.

As a personal example, I always tend to think about my kid brother. I love my brother beyond words, but he is not a smart fellow. He is a teenager who literally has the mind of a 9 or 10 year old right now. He is sweet and kind and funny and wonderful, but unless he wins the lottery he is probably never going to acquire a fortune of his own.

My parents aren't rich people, but they are very very frugal. They've managed to save quite a nest egg by living well below their means for the last 30 years. When they die, they will have a reasonable amount of money to leave behind. This money is going mainly to my little brother, because my parents know that I am more likely to be able to support myself well.

So look at that. A "stupid" person is going to "hit it rich" while a smarter person stays "poor." My brother's going to have a great deal of money that he didn't earn. He's probably going to buy himself at least a few really stupid things (he loves sports cars and videogames). I'm sure he'll make some choices with that money that other people will not like. But I think that should be legal.

My parents have scrimped and saved since before I was born. Why should they be rewarded by having their savings taken away, or taxed a second (or possibly third) time? Why shouldn't they be free to choose who gets the money that they have worked so hard to earn? I think they've earned that right, as well.

I can't agree with you on that one. I believe that the money I earn during my lifetime is mine, and that includes my right to decide who I want to give it to when I die. I don't believe somebody else (who did not earn my money) has the right to swoop in and make that decision for me.
That's how taxes work, buddy.

Income is taxed redundantly: income tax, sales tax, property tax, tax tax, etc.

Another thing:

What do rich people do with their money? They let it sit in a bank account. They do nothing with it. This cuts off money supply from people who might actually use it. The inheritance tax at least recirculates it into the economy. I believe its necessary in keeping inflation in check.

That's how taxes work, buddy.

Income is taxed redundantly: income tax, sales tax, property tax, tax tax, etc.
I know. There are many existing systems which I do not entirely agree with.

I still pay my taxes, though. :)

[QUOTE=Epsilon Squadron]On the contrary. Someone has argued about owning personal property. It was done and decided by better minds than ours that people should be secure in their property. I have the right to own property and I should have the right to see it disposed of as I see fit. If I want to leave it to a house full of cats then I should be able to do that. If I want to leave it to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation I should be able to do that. If I wish to leave it to my children, by what right do you or anyone else tell me no?

First of all, your argument about better minds than ours, relies on an authority; in this case one that is not named. relying on authority for your argument is weak. (in short: If we where to listen to all that have decided things before us we would still be living in the stone age)

Second another has argued about efficiency of property. Still, efficiency and justice are seperate issues.

Moreover, in order for you to justly exersise the right to leave your property to your children you first need to have the right to that property. Which is very problematic; why do you and not another have the right to a certain plot of land for example.

Another thing:

What do rich people do with their money? They let it sit in a bank account. They do nothing with it.

Actually, most rich people don't just stick their money in the bank. They tend to invest in one way or another.


This cuts off money supply from people who might actually use it.

I have money in a savings account right now. I assure you, I'm "using it." It's my savings account, and it doesn't matter if somebody else would like to use it for their own purposes...you don't get to take what isn't yours simply because you could use it, too.


The inheritance tax at least recirculates it into the economy. I believe its necessary in keeping inflation in check.
The inheritance tax won't do a damn thing about our current problems with inflation. That's a whole other muddle.

On the contrary. Someone has argued about owning personal property. It was done and decided by better minds than ours that people should be secure in their property.
Because it works.
I have the right to own property and I should have the right to see it disposed of as I see fit. If I want to leave it to a house full of cats then I should be able to do that. If I want to leave it to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation I should be able to do that. If I wish to leave it to my children, by what right do you or anyone else tell me no?
The only reason you have that property is because the government supports the institution of private property, as it should. If you aren’t content with helping the poor, then just think of taxes as paying for a service.
Do you really belive this? Do you really believe that in order to prevent crime, we should just give them what they want in the first place? So if I really want a 61" LCD HDTV and I just might commit some crime to get it, the government should give it to me to prevent that future crime?
I believe that the root causes of crime are a lack of education and opportunity, and I believe the government can provide those in ways that private interests can't or aren't willing to do or able to do without government support and/or incentives.

After all the bulldust: POLLTIME!

Who doesn't care for the poor: democrats, republicans, both, or myrth?

No one yet has shown how the government has any legitimate right to take someone's properties/lands just because they were unlucky enough to die.


The founders of this republic, the people "conservatives" like to go back to, didn't think anyone but the rich should pay any taxes. That is why they only believed in property tax and protective tariffs. At that time all wealth was in property. They also didn't like the system in England where generations could do nothing as a permanent aristocracy. They believed each person should earn their position in society. None of the "Fathers" had great (some got start up money) inherited wealth. That is why only the rich pay. Everyone can give their children "seed" money but not "castle" money.

From an economic standpoint, money setting around doesn't aid the nation. The economy grows from spent money not from warehoused money. So the inheritance tax is designed not to collect the money but to encourage the rich to take money out of the warehouse and either donate it or spend it. This is what Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are looking at as they dump billions. They don't plan on giving vast amounts to the government and the government isn't looking at collecting. What the government gets is an influx of spending which stimulates the economy. Someone has to handle and sell all of those mosquito nets, medicines, books, etc. Then they spend the money, and those they spend it with spend the money, then those they spend it with spend the money................

You know what we need? A federal law preventing the combining of more than one movement in a single bill.

Nonsense. Combining measures in this manner is essential to democracy.

Take a body of a hundred people that decides on issues through direct democracy. They all have different interests and want different laws, programs, etc. passed. None of them have any reason to support a bill that only serves somebody else's interest, because of the opportunity cost of the resources used for that bill. Thus, nothing is accomplished; all the bills fail 99-1.

Now a majority of the group gets together and says, we're tired of this, let's do something about it. They propose one broad bill with numerous "riders" that serves the interests of 60 of the 100, and thus get it passed. No one's interests were served; now the interests of a majority are served.

That's compromise. It's how the system works, and without it, the system wouldn't work. Political parties in a two-party system, or coalitions in a multi-party system, are another example. Without them, democracy would be a failure.

Edit: It also secures the power of minorities by letting them use their tie-breaking abilities to their advantage.

Now a majority of the group gets together and says, we're tried of this, let's do something about it. They propose one broad bill with numerous "riders" that serves the interests of 60 of the 100, and thus get it passed. No one's interests were served; now the interests of a majority are served.
I would agree, if that wasn't all gum drops and moonshine hallucination. Bills with important purposes are laden down with pet projects of individuals and groups in hopes that the bill is so important that they will pass. This bill was stacked against the Democrats by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress by throwing in a Democrat position: increasing minimum wage against several Republican tax-cutting measures aimed mainly at wealthy individuals. There was no compromise, it was designed to hurt the Democrats or hurt the Democrats.

I can't agree with you on that one. I believe that the money I earn during my lifetime is mine, and that includes my right to decide who I want to give it to when I die. I don't believe somebody else (who did not earn my money) has the right to swoop in and make that decision for me.

As a personal example, I always tend to think about my kid brother. I love my brother beyond words, but he is not a smart fellow. He is a teenager who literally has the mind of a 9 or 10 year old right now. He is sweet and kind and funny and wonderful, but unless he wins the lottery he is probably never going to acquire a fortune of his own.

My parents aren't rich people, but they are very very frugal. They've managed to save quite a nest egg by living well below their means for the last 30 years. When they die, they will have a reasonable amount of money to leave behind. This money is going mainly to my little brother, because my parents know that I am more likely to be able to support myself well.

So look at that. A "stupid" person is going to "hit it rich" while a smarter person stays "poor." My brother's going to have a great deal of money that he didn't earn. He's probably going to buy himself at least a few really stupid things (he loves sports cars and videogames). I'm sure he'll make some choices with that money that other people will not like. But I think that should be legal.

My parents have scrimped and saved since before I was born. Why should they be rewarded by having their savings taken away, or taxed a second (or possibly third) time? Why shouldn't they be free to choose who gets the money that they have worked so hard to earn? I think they've earned that right, as well.


To be fair, though, I'm not sure what you are talking about is the same as what he's talking about; it certainly isn't what the government is talking about when they revise and codify the estate tax.

Put simply, the estate tax is highly unlikely to hit even that sizable nest egg that your parents have saved up. As such, the tax burden on it is precisely zero. Even if it surpasses $1 million, it is only taxed on the amount that exceeds the million mark. The net effect is that the estate tax, as is, is still going to leave your brother enough money to last him at what my current living expenditures would be around 60 years. To me, that sounds pretty fair. It also sounds fair that if he beats that cap, he can afford to part with some of it, and Lord knows your parents aren't going to need it.

This doesn't apply to you, Bottle, but perhaps it needs to be repeated for the benefit of all the anarcho-capitalists on the thread: there are three basic reasons why the government has a claim to your property in the form of an estate tax. The first is the general claim that, of course, the government does have a general right to claim property for the public good; hell, it's elaborated in the Fifth Amendment that this particular government can do so provided fair compensation. Governments generally have that claim because it's an inherent power of government to make such claims: a government with no coercive abilities to seize that which it needs to sustain itself and punish those who break its laws is no government at all.

Second, following from the first point, the government provides the material conditions for increasing wealth. They provide infrastructure. They enforce contracts. They secure standards of exchange. They keep rabble out, and ensure that crime doesn't overwhelm the system. Because the government provides these services, they therefore have a claim, under the principle of fair compensation, to the material means to ensure the continuation of services. Because the very wealthy obviously benefitted more from the services the government provided, they are therefore obligated to pay more. If you don't like our services, move somewhere where the social contract is more in tune with your thinking. If you don't like any existing social contract, move to Somalia; I hear the complete lack of a social contract is doing wonders for them.

Third, the government has an obligation to ensure that every citizen has, if not success, then at least a reasonable chance at success. Put simply, your ability to thrive in society ought to be based on how well you play the game, not where you start on the board. By creating huge discrepancies of wealth, where a few people have more money than they know what to do with and many have nothing, we are not fulfilling that obligation. Therefore, in the interest of our citizens and the interest of ensuring that everyone can pursue happiness, we ought to take steps to ensure that the playing field is at least not completely tilted to one side. One such step is an estate tax.

As a side note, I can think of no better people to tax than the rich and the dead, but that's not really a logical argument so much as a caustic bit of wit.

I would agree, if that wasn't all gum drops and moonshine hallucination. Bills with important purposes are laden down with pet projects of individuals and groups in hopes that the bill is so important that they will pass. This bill was stacked against the Democrats by an overwhelmingly Republican Congress by throwing in a Democrat position: increasing minimum wage against several Republican tax-cutting measures aimed mainly at wealthy individuals. There was no compromise, it was designed to hurt the Democrats or hurt the Democrats.

I didn't say this particular example wasn't flawed, I said that eliminating the potential for combining measures wasn't a good idea.

I didn't say this particular example wasn't flawed, I said that eliminating the potential for combining measures wasn't a good idea.
This particular example? This is every-bill.

This particular example? This is every-bill.

Then do something about Congress. Speaking of flawed institutions....

But even in Congress, this kind of thing can have beneficial effects; most of the spending cutting bills did a lot of things at once, and they wouldn't have been passed if they hadn't.

I can't agree with you on that one. I believe that the money I earn during my lifetime is mine, and that includes my right to decide who I want to give it to when I die. I don't believe somebody else (who did not earn my money) has the right to swoop in and make that decision for me.

As a personal example, I always tend to think about my kid brother. I love my brother beyond words, but he is not a smart fellow. He is a teenager who literally has the mind of a 9 or 10 year old right now. He is sweet and kind and funny and wonderful, but unless he wins the lottery he is probably never going to acquire a fortune of his own.

My parents aren't rich people, but they are very very frugal. They've managed to save quite a nest egg by living well below their means for the last 30 years. When they die, they will have a reasonable amount of money to leave behind. This money is going mainly to my little brother, because my parents know that I am more likely to be able to support myself well.

So look at that. A "stupid" person is going to "hit it rich" while a smarter person stays "poor." My brother's going to have a great deal of money that he didn't earn. He's probably going to buy himself at least a few really stupid things (he loves sports cars and videogames). I'm sure he'll make some choices with that money that other people will not like. But I think that should be legal.

My parents have scrimped and saved since before I was born. Why should they be rewarded by having their savings taken away, or taxed a second (or possibly third) time? Why shouldn't they be free to choose who gets the money that they have worked so hard to earn? I think they've earned that right, as well.

Well, my post was semi-sarcastic, but I'll go with it.

I wasn't refering to someone like your brother, since I doubt he's going to be a pompous bastard about it. Personally, I would like to see Miss Soapdish stripped of her possessions and forced to live in Alaska, preferably for a very long time, but that's just me.


To clarify, Bottle, I support Lassiez-faire economics. ISo I actually agree with you, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money.

No one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, but people have the right to collect money owed to them for services.

No one has the right to tell you what to do with your money, but people have the right to collect money owed to them for services.

By entering into the agreement for that person to provide services, you are stating that that person will recieve just compensation. That's called business.

Of course, defining "services," "people," and "money owed" is where people get the arguments.

By entering into the agreement for that person to provide services, you are stating that that person will recieve just compensation. That's called business.

Of course, defining "services," "people," and "money owed" is where people get the arguments.

'Services' action taken on behalf of one party, hereafter referred to as
'the servicees' by another party hereafter, the servicers, with the initial agreement that the servicees will give a predetermined amount of money to the servicers in return for aforementioned action.

'Money owed' currency which by a legally binding action, one party is required to give to another.

'People' Any human being, excluding liberals, conservatives, criminals, lawyers, lunatics, women, democrats, communists, republicans, democrats minorities, children, retirees and IRS officials.

Both parties are made of über-rich elites who don't care about the majority.

First accurate post in this thread.

Another thing:

What do rich people do with their money? They let it sit in a bank account. They do nothing with it. This cuts off money supply from people who might actually use it. The inheritance tax at least recirculates it into the economy. I believe its necessary in keeping inflation in check.
You think rich people just let their money sit in a bank account?

They don't. They invest it. Even if it just sits in a mutual fund or a 401(k) or whatever safe investments are wherever they live, that money is working to create jobs by being a business investment.

And even if they did just leave it in banks, it's not just sitting there. The banks are constantly using that money to try to earn money. That's why banks pay interest - they benefit from holding your money for you.

You think rich people just let their money sit in a bank account?

They don't. They invest it. Even if it just sits in a mutual fund or a 401(k) or whatever safe investments are wherever they live, that money is working to create jobs by being a business investment.

And even if they did just leave it in banks, it's not just sitting there. The banks are constantly using that money to try to earn money. That's why banks pay interest - they benefit from holding your money for you.

The problem is the money would benefit the economy greater if it were used rather that warehoused. When it is used, everytime it changes hands it adds to the economy. That can happen several times each week. Warehoused money moves much more slowly. For instance, it is loaned on a 30 year note. It moves once in 30 years. That of course is not entirely true as the person who it is loaned to moves it. But he only moves the noninterest part. Which means that part that is returned to the investor is totally dead to the economy while the rest moves at least somewhat.

Oh yeah my usual Reply

"Hate this Government... Hate it Hate it Hate it." :headbang:

What jerks.
Yeah, what jerks! When did those damn Democrats become the party of fiscal responsibility?! I mean, really... those assholes!

Nonsense. Combining measures in this manner is essential to democracy.
Which is a very good argument against democracy.

Nonsense. Combining measures in this manner is essential to democracy.Not necessarily. John Stuart Mill made a very compelling case that legislatures should not be allowed to write law at all, for precisely this reason. Rather, they should have only the responsibility of giving the "yes" or "no" to legislation written by special committees of experts who should design laws that make sense, rather than bizarre amalgams of self-serving clauses.

Not exactly sure I agree... but still, he makes a good case that democratic rule has nothing to do with writing laws, and everything to do with holding the law accountable to the popular will.

:p

One of these days, I'm going to get elected to congressional office. I am then going to propose a bill called the "Puppies and Ice Cream bill." The text will be as follows:

Congress hereby affirms that we like puppies and ice cream. Every child who wants one should get a free puppy and free ice cream should be served on Sundays. Also, if your firstborn leave the womb on a Tuesday, you must sacrifice him to the elder gods.

When the bill doesn't pass, I will then be able to say of all my opponents, "HE DOESN'T LIKE PUPPIES AND ICE CREAM!!!!!"

One of these days, I'm going to get elected to congressional office. I am then going to propose a bill called the "Puppies and Ice Cream bill." The text will be as follows:

Congress hereby affirms that we like puppies and ice cream. Every child who wants one should get a free puppy and free ice cream should be served on Sundays. Also, if your firstborn leave the womb on a Tuesday, you must sacrifice him to the elder gods.

When the bill doesn't pass, I will then be able to say of all my opponents, "HE DOESN'T LIKE PUPPIES AND ICE CREAM!!!!!"
I second the motion.
They hate puppies and ice cream! Commies!

But he only moves the noninterest part. Which means that part that is returned to the investor is totally dead to the economy while the rest moves at least somewhat.

No, actually the interest is also spent; it's usually loaned back out or reinvested in to the company. The purpose of interest is to both hedge against the risk of an NPL as well as to give lenders incentive to loan out their money; in fact, interest is one of the most vital methods of expanding the money supply given its ramifications throughout the banking system.

Without interest, the economy would be either totally dead or reduced to its levels during the Middle Ages.

Maybe you should get a better paying job instead of wanting to steal from those who made more because they are smarter than you.
In most cases people who are rich were born into something of a rich background. Yes, they often do make their own money, but not because they're smarter than people born into poor backgrounds. So really, the rich are stealing from us.

If it wouldn't e such a bureaucratic nightmare, I would advocate taking money from those who didn't earn it and making them wear burlap clothing and toss them on the streets, and then give the money to those who are working and still can't afford basic necessities.
Why is tossing people out onto the streets ever a good idea?

After all the bulldust: POLLTIME!

Who doesn't care for the poor: democrats, republicans, both, or myrth?
Good plan Boggie!

Personally, I would like to see Miss Soapdish stripped of her possessions and forced to live in Alaska, preferably for a very long time, but that's just me.

To clarify, Bottle, I support Lassiez-faire economics. ISo I actually agree with you, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your money.
The Bible instructs us to relieve the poor of their poverty, not increase it.

What do rich people do with their money? They let it sit in a bank account. They do nothing with it. This cuts off money supply from people who might actually use it. The inheritance tax at least recirculates it into the economy. I believe its necessary in keeping inflation in check.

From an economic standpoint, money setting around doesn't aid the nation. The economy grows from spent money not from warehoused money. So the inheritance tax is designed not to collect the money but to encourage the rich to take money out of the warehouse and either donate it or spend it.

These are two statements of unbridled ignorance.

Money does not ever ‘just sit around’, it is not ‘warehoused’. That money is lent out in the form of loans or investments, which allow businesses to expand, which allow companies to be created, which vastly improves the economy. It is that very ‘warehoused’ money that allows the economy to grow. People putting money in the banking system is what creates the money multiplier effect – which basically mean that while there may only be $1 put in there, that same dollar is lent out again and again so as to have the economic effect of $3.

Eliminating those funds because you are bitter that some people have more money than you is ignorant, irrational, and beneath the dignity of civilized men. Instead of bitching about how others have more than you, why don’t you try to do something about making money yourself – instead of demanding the government take it from someone else by force?

In most cases people who are rich were born into something of a rich background. Yes, they often do make their own money, but not because they're smarter than people born into poor backgrounds. So really, the rich are stealing from us.

Even if they were born in to a semi-rich background, that still means someone worked to accumulate that money, usually their parents or their grandparents. There's nothing wrong with someone being born in to a world of wealth and opportunity if that good fortune was accumulated fairly by their parents or anyone in their family line.

.
Money does not ever ‘just sit around’, it is not ‘warehoused’. That money is lent out in the form of loans or investments, which allow businesses to expand, which allow companies to be created, which vastly improves the economy. It is that very ‘warehoused’ money that allows the economy to grow. People putting money in the banking system is what creates the money multiplier effect – which basically mean that while there may only be $1 put in there, that same dollar is lent out again and again so as to have the economic effect of $3.


Correct. The fractional reserve system along with interest are the forces driving our economic growth by expanding the money supply; if I put $100 in to the bank that $100 works its way through the banking system until a total of $1,000 (in the US) is lent out to applicants. You've taken $100 and turned it in to $1000 in new investment...it's pretty obvious how that powers economic growth even without factoring in interest on the loans.

Even if they were born in to a semi-rich background, that still means someone worked to accumulate that money, usually their parents or their grandparents. There's nothing wrong with someone being born in to a world of wealth and opportunity if that good fortune was accumulated fairly by their parents or anyone in their family line.
Look at it this way:
You can make the rich give a little of their wealth now, or you can wait until the poor decide to take what they don’t have by force, probably from a member of the middle class.

The problem is the money would benefit the economy greater if it were used rather that warehoused. When it is used, everytime it changes hands it adds to the economy. That can happen several times each week. Warehoused money moves much more slowly. For instance, it is loaned on a 30 year note. It moves once in 30 years. That of course is not entirely true as the person who it is loaned to moves it. But he only moves the noninterest part. Which means that part that is returned to the investor is totally dead to the economy while the rest moves at least somewhat.
Entropic Creation beat me to it, but this never happens.

Whoever is holding the money has an incentive to move it. If it just sits still it's no good to anyone, and as such the holder of the money doesn't let that happen.

Your analysis of the monetary system demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the monetary system.

You can make the rich give a little of their wealth now, or you can wait until the poor decide to take what they don’t have by force, probably from a member of the middle class.

That's true. Panem et circenses is as true a concept today as it was during the time of Juvenal; give the poor just enough to keep them happy and thereby protect the middle and upper classes from the wrath of out-of-contol populism.

Look at it this way:
You can make the rich give a little of their wealth now, or you can wait until the poor decide to take what they don’t have by force, probably from a member of the middle class.
So taxes aren't theft, they're blackmail?

Sure, that's a lot better.

So taxes aren't theft, they're blackmail?

Sure, that's a lot better.

Either one is a felony.

Not necessarily. John Stuart Mill made a very compelling case that legislatures should not be allowed to write law at all, for precisely this reason. Rather, they should have only the responsibility of giving the "yes" or "no" to legislation written by special committees of experts who should design laws that make sense, rather than bizarre amalgams of self-serving clauses.

Not exactly sure I agree... but still, he makes a good case that democratic rule has nothing to do with writing laws, and everything to do with holding the law accountable to the popular will.

:p

The problem is that if you keep all laws narrowly focused (whether by law or through the committee of experts), you have to make the lawmaking body accountable to everyone (through, say, PR with votes of no confidence or just a democratically-elected autocrat, resulting in coalitions forming beforehand instead of law by law) or you are likely to get too many divisions to effectively accomplish anything.

In a legislature like ours, with geographically-based constituencies (and thus Congresspeople who represent certain specific interests not necessarily tied to others), it is perfectly natural that this sort of thing develops, and probably essential.

As long as you keep the politicians effectively accountable to the people, it won't cause too many problems - the laws approved will be the laws the majority would have approved, and thus democracy is served. I will grant that the present system of representative democracy does not keep politicians effectively accountable to the people, but that is another subject.

I love it! Republicans attach a Paris Hilton tax-cut to a bill that is meant to help the working class, thereby ensuring more of the reckless spending that is bankrupting the country...and when Democrats object it is held up as proof that they hate the poor.

Yep, you heard it here first: anybody who wants to have a balanced budget and a living minimum wage is clearly somebody who hates the poor. Also, war is peace and slavery is freedom.


I hate to break it to you, but attatching the death tax cut to the minimum wage increase has absolutely NOTHING to do with spending, reckless or otherwise.

What is likely to happen is that it would help offset some of the jobs that will be lost because of the minimum wage increase.

You see, that money would likely be invested back into companies that create jobs, and everyone would benefit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage_estate_tax;_ylt=Au9UUafCxpBRtt2GXg2DEJCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

...The Senate late Thursday rejected, 56-42, a bill fusing the cut in estate taxes with a $2.10 increase over three years in the $5.15 minimum wage...

...Democrats could have voted against the bill, thus rejecting a minimum wage. Or, they could have voted for the bill, thus supporting a tax cut on large estates...


With the exception of Sens. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas Democcrat Senators are more concerned with tax revenues than they are with helping the lowest earning wage earners.

Think about that - when it comes time to choose they would rather vote to take money from people who can afford it than they would to give money to those who need it. It shows you their priority is not helping the poor at all. The see the poor as pawns - to be pandered to only so long as the Democrats get to keep their power and big spending. When they get a chance to help the poor their answer is a unified "Screw you! We need our tax revenue!" When given a golden opportunity to do something they choose to spite the taxpayer than help the poor. What jerks.


Listen closely to Black Sabbath's War Pigs song.

"Treating people, just like pawns in chess!" --- Ozzy Osborne


Basically, welcome to the real world. It sucks, but thats what we get for voting in those assholes. Frankly, there needs to be a dismatling of the Two Party system, or the creation of a third party. A Peoples Party, which stands for the working man. Not a Communist Party, but like the Republicans in essence, but not out for the perpetuation of the party. One which truly stands for the people.

Here is the big secret: Neither party really cares about poor people.

I hate to break it to you, but attatching the death tax cut to the minimum wage increase has absolutely NOTHING to do with spending, reckless or otherwise.

What is likely to happen is that it would help offset some of the jobs that will be lost because of the minimum wage increase.

You see, that money would likely be invested back into companies that create jobs, and everyone would benefit.

You're right about having nothing to do with spending... per se. Cuts to the estate tax are a means of allowing rich familes to become ungodly wealthy from the labor of other people without having to give back to society.

There has never been any conclusive proof that raising the minimum has ever increased unemployment, and indeed, the states with the highest minimum wages have the lowest unemployment.

The estate tax is a tax on inheritance, not death. It only applies to the very wealthy in our society, and the money that rich heirs/heiresses "save" will not be reinvested because it is already invested in the estate of the deceased person.

Here is the big secret: Neither party really cares about poor people.
I thought everyone knew that.

Republicans don't really care, unless the poor people show up to the faith-based aid.

Democrats don't really care, unless the poor people show up to get on the voting bus on voting day - all they're doing is buying their votes.

Any big reduction in poverty during the years that Democrats held power? No.

Certainly none that can be credited to Republicans either.

You're right about having nothing to do with spending... per se. Cuts to the estate tax are a means of allowing rich familes to become ungodly wealthy from the labor of other people without having to give back to society.

There has never been any conclusive proof that raising the minimum has ever increased unemployment, and indeed, the states with the highest minimum wages have the lowest unemployment.

The estate tax is a tax on inheritance, not death. It only applies to the very wealthy in our society, and the money that rich heirs/heiresses "save" will not be reinvested because it is already invested in the estate of the deceased person.
They "give back" by investing the money. The extra wealth gets created by combining the labour of wirkers with the capital of the investors. That's giving back.

And investment is not a one-time thing. It persists. It happens continuously as long as the investment is being used.

And you're asking for "conclusive proof"? What counts as proof to you? Small businesses operate with very small margins. Increasing their labour costs by 10-20% will force them to cut back or shut down, which reduces employment. And most new jobs are created by small business.

Remember when Ted Turner pledged $1 billion to the UN? That was a horribly selfish act on his part. He could have done vastly more good by investing in industry somewhere, and creating jobs for people. Not just pouring a billion dollars into the black hole of the UN for some quick PR.

You're right about having nothing to do with spending... per se. Cuts to the estate tax are a means of allowing rich familes to become ungodly wealthy from the labor of other people without having to give back to society.

Wow - that isn't even an abuse of logic - it is just a unjustified statement based solely on ignorance which has nothing to do whatsoever with helping the poor. (unless jealousy soumehow helps people) Thanks for sharing.

There has never been any conclusive proof that raising the minimum has ever increased unemployment, and indeed, the states with the highest minimum wages have the lowest unemployment.
And you can prove that ummm, how? Did you know that there is no correlation between states with an estate tax and the poverty rates of thost states nor is there any pattern of a greater or smaller gape between the rich and poor in those states. Unlike you - I can even provide evidence;
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/PovertyRates/

The estate tax is a tax on inheritance, not death.
You don't get one without the other.

It only applies to the very wealthy in our society,
So? If your're not the person being screwed then 'fuckem' That's your attitude? Good thing this thread isn't about civil rights then. Or is it?

and the money that rich heirs/heiresses "save" will not be reinvested because it is already invested in the estate of the deceased person.
Apparently you dont know what reinvested means. When a person liquidates a business in order to pay estate taxes then the business does not continue. That would be uninvested - not reinvested. Reinvested would be what happens when the owners are able to continue a business venture and grow the enterprise. Can't get reinvestment after uninvestment.

THen there's the whole matter of what the government does with said collected taxes - which are not likely to create jobs, taxpayers or any economic activity whatsoever. Buy hey! Lets STICK it to the children of the rich! Those bastards never earn anything, except um
Christie Hefner, Ivanka Trump, Margaret Anne Cargill, Aerin Lauder, Dylan Lauren, Roy Disney... I could go on...

You thought that a rant? How odd.

How about you explain to me where I am ignorant, then... the way I see it, you hadn't considered line-item vetoes (or didn't notice they existed)...


(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/despite_bushs_push_congress_still_resists_a_line_item_veto_vote/)
(quote =hyperlink - clickit)

ROFLMAO! Really no point to address anything else you wrote since you obviously are quite ignorant.

Perhaps you would like to explain how the current year-on-year increase in deficit emphasises your argument?
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060804/ap_on_go_ot/budget_deficit_1)
(quote=hyperlink - clickit)

ROFLMAO!! You just can't get ANYTHIG right. I feel sorry for you. It must hurt to have so many illusions broken in the same day.

Leaves trhe government with less money to fund the services I use.

Hmmm. So you feel that the rich should pay for the government instead of you paying your fair share?

Specifically what services are you referring to?

Hmmm...my first thought upon reading that bill was, 'why is estate tax tied in with minimum wage'?
There's no connection nor comparison between the two.

They concern two completely seperate groups in society and as such, should be seperate bills which can be debated on their own merits seperately.

All it seems to me is an attempt by GOP to either force through a bill they want (the estate tax) or when it fails have the ammunition to accuse the Dems of 'hating the poor', cause they 'don't' want to raise the minimum wage.

I see Bozzy fell for it. No doubt Fox and every other right-wing pundit will too.

Guess it's gearing up to election time again and GOP, having seen how successful the Kerry 'flip-flop-voted-for-then-against' smear tactic worked, is preparing itself to launch another barrage of half-truths and lies upon that which will be picked up and parrotted by evety right-wing apologist out there.


Can hardly wait.


No doubt the next bill will be 'massive tax cut for the rich and aren't kittens and babies cute?'.
What?
They voted against the bill?
Dems don't think kittens and babies are cute!
The bastards!

ROFLMAO! I love how you try to spin the fact that democrats chose a little tax money over increasing the min wage nearly 50%. The Republicans prudently took an issue the Democrats have made a mandate and said - we'll give it to you - but we want something too. Now decide how important your 'mandate' is to you. The deomcrats had it in their hands and they threw it back just to spite the 'rich' - For a tax which accounts for only 0.012820512820512820512820512820513 (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy99/guide/guide02.html#revenues) (paid on the estate of people who already paid well over a third of income tax (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls) revenues and even more when you consider business tax revenues) of total revenues. There is no other way to spin this - but your attempts to are quite entertaining.

Thats assinine.

I make minimum wage.

Paying me an extra two dollars an hour, wont make a damn difference to me.
Once minimum wage goes up, SO DOES THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING ELSE.

Taking more from the uber-rich is the only way to go.

Your assertions are false.
Really? You wouldn't like making another 2 dollars an hour? I personally FAR preferred $14.75 an hour to $8.00 an hour, and preferred $8.00 to $5.15.


So, I'll go ahead and call bullshit on each and every person who claims they don't want to make more money.


If you can say that, then you still live with mommy and daddy, and don't have bills to pay. If that's the case, then you can't vote and your political opinion on tax policy is irrelevant, since you don't pay taxes most likely, or you are the 24 year old living with his parents.

I'm getting the general impession that nobody cares about the poor. I'm still waiting for the announcement that 'It's official- The poor don't care about the poor'

Most poor people who are victims of crime were victimized by other poor people. Does that count?

If the either party cared about the poor, they'd be addressing the massive deficits that are fueling some of the inflation that erodes the purchasing power of the poor. The estate tax cut could easily be paid for if spending were cut or even slown to a rate below the growth in tax revenues.
Deficits and inflation have about as much in common as shoes and cold fusion. Try again.

You're right about having nothing to do with spending... per se. Cuts to the estate tax are a means of allowing rich familes to become ungodly wealthy from the labor of other people without having to give back to society.
The labor of OTHER PEOPLE?

By which you mean their parents? Let's not go crazy here, we are all going to inherit something from our parents. Obviously you are just pissed that you won't get an oil refinery. Hell, if it was me getting a 10 billion inheritance, I'd be shittin if I had to pay 3 billion in taxes....

Yes clearly being born into a rich family (inheritence tax) means you're automatically smarter!

You sir are too stupid to live, please find the nearest exit to the gene pool and use it enthusiastically.


Of course - then there's the other 83% (or at least a majority) of affluent who got there all by themselves. (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/SavingandDebt/P80541.asp)

I would agree that they are not all smarter - some have a better work ethic (or manic work ethic) but by and large yes - they are much more likely to be intelligent - or at least not spout of stupid and incorrect assumptions in a public forum.

The labor of OTHER PEOPLE?

By which you mean their parents? Let's not go crazy here, we are all going to inherit something from our parents. Obviously you are just pissed that you won't get an oil refinery. Hell, if it was me getting a 10 billion inheritance, I'd be shittin if I had to pay 3 billion in taxes....


Actually - isn't what their parents do with their money the choice of the people who eanred it? - the parents? It was Warren Buffet who just gave $32bil to charity rather than have it confiscated by the government at his death. His kids didn't get much say becaiuse the money isn't theirs. Same for the rest of us. The right to vote is not the right to Warren's money - or anyone else's.

That's how taxes work, buddy.

Income is taxed redundantly: income tax, sales tax, property tax, tax tax, etc.

Personally, there should be a constitutional amendment against the property tax. /complaint

Oh, and Bottle, that post was semi-satrical. I'm a lassiez-faire kinda guy, I don't like the redisribution of wealth. :)

Actually - isn't what their parents do with their money the choice of the people who eanred it? - the parents? It was Warren Buffet who just gave $32bil to charity rather than have it confiscated by the government at his death. His kids didn't get much say becaiuse the money isn't theirs. Same for the rest of us. The right to vote is not the right to Warren's money - or anyone else's.
Not sure where this came from?

See, my only point was that those who "inherit" money only get it from close relatives, and I personally don't consider that a crime, although many people on these forums apparently do. I'm not sure where you are going with the rest of this.

Not sure where this came from?

See, my only point was that those who "inherit" money only get it from close relatives, and I personally don't consider that a crime, although many people on these forums apparently do. I'm not sure where you are going with the rest of this.

pretty much just agreeing with you and reinforcing yer point.

Why is tossing people out onto the streets ever a good idea?

As I said, the post was semi-satrical.

The Bible instructs us to relieve the poor of their poverty, not increase it.

That is correct. That's what Christian charities are for. After all, as B0zzy stated, the greater majority of the rich earned it. Doesn't the eighth commandment say "Thou shalt not steal?"

Doesn't the eighth commandment say "Thou shalt not steal?"

God is a pretty ardent thief, if that's the logic you're using.

After all, He instituted tithing (taxation to support an unproductive priest class), demanded that farmers leave the corners of their field for the poor (social welfare), and land reform every fifty years (redistribution of wealth.)

Deficits and inflation have about as much in common as shoes and cold fusion. Try again.

Deficits not only weaken the dollar but put more money in to the economy at an unstable rate; by accelerating growth in the money supply beyond trend and weakening the dollar, you drive up prices for goods and services.

God is a pretty ardent thief, if that's the logic you're using.

After all, He instituted tithing (taxation to support an unproductive priest class)

No, the catholic church instituted that. I'm a Calvinist, I don't support such things.

demanded that farmers leave the corners of their field for the poor (social welfare), and land reform every fifty years (redistribution of wealth.)

I've never read either of that, but I haven't read my Old Testament in a long time, so meh. However, the difference is that this is done by man, not God. God is above the law he sets for man.

No, the catholic church instituted that.

Sorry, it's in the Bible, concerning the Levites, not the Catholic Church.

I've never read either of that, but I haven't read my Old Testament in a long time, so meh.

That would explain it.

However, the difference is that this is done by man, not God. God is above the law he sets for man.

If you believe the Bible, God makes clear elsewhere that He expects human beings to care for the poor... or else. He destroyed the Temples in part because of the failure of society to care for the lower classes. Collective punishment for a collective crime - not an individual one.

You know what we need? A federal law preventing the combining of more than one movement in a single bill.


Sounds like a good idea, until you think about the process.

If there were NO combination of articles, you would have to debate, work compromises, and submit EVERY article individually... and there just isn't anywhere near enough time for the central legislative body to address that many articles.

So - what we have is supposed to be a compromise, where legislational ideas are grouped together... if there is no objection to an individual article, it carries on down the line. This also allows for a degree of compromise... since one party can attach riders or remove conditions, until both parties can agree on one big chunk of law that is a 'best fit'.

A worthwhile law might be one that only allows SIMILAR legislation articles on one bill - at least then you wouldn't end up with such obvious bill poisoning as this attempt.

What we have to make sure we don't get, is the full line-item veto Bush is pushing for... it was a bad idea when it was Clinton's idea, and the courts decided it was unconstitutional... I wonder why we are having the same argument again.

On the contrary. Someone has argued about owning personal property. It was done and decided by better minds than ours that people should be secure in their property.

Really? Better minds, huh?

A curious view of the world, where all of the great thoughts have already happened.

I'd argue that things like 'property rights' are entirely dependent on culture... and that cultures evolve and change. So - there can never be any 'definitive' decision on such an issue.

I dont know if you realize it but neither party cares about the poor. Just so you know.

As I said, the post was semi-satrical.



That is correct. That's what Christian charities are for. After all, as B0zzy stated, the greater majority of the rich earned it. Doesn't the eighth commandment say "Thou shalt not steal?"

Taxes aren't theft. In a democracy taxes are charity that a society willingly agrees to. Even the Hebrews of the OT days payed taxes to their temple priests.

The Bible instructs us not to kill. I guess we should do away with those government regulations against murder, and just let people not murder because they're good people instead of giving some tyrannical government the power to make laws about it, right?

Read the Constitution. It's purpose (among other things) is to promote the general welfare. That's what the estate tax, and taxes in general, being used to finance things that, while good for the country, are not self financing.

A clearer example would be NYC meuseums. Some people argue that the government shouldn't be financing art. If people want art, they'll pay for it. If museums go broke, then clearly there's no demand for them. Thing is, if the city finances these museums then tourists come to the city to see them. The museum might not make back its operating cost, but the city recoups its loss from taxing the resteraunts, chachka stores, and income taxes from the employees of those businesses. By financing museums, the city creates jobs and increases its revenue base. Taxes are used to make the city a better place. If you're opposed to a society being able to levy taxes to create a better society, you're not an individualist, you're not a conservative, you're not a Christian. You're an asshole.

Deficits and inflation have about as much in common as shoes and cold fusion. Try again.

You think that the value of one's money has nothing to do with one's ability to use that money to pay off debts?

With logic like that, why should anyone listen to anything else you have to say?

Taxes aren't theft. In a democracy taxes are charity that a society willingly agrees to.
Thatn logic doesn't really work, it's the same as saying if someone got raped on a camping trip with 4 others "It wasn't a bad thing, because the majority willingly agreed to it".

Taxes aren't theft. In a democracy taxes are charity that a society willingly agrees to. Even the Hebrews of the OT days payed taxes to their temple priests.

Tithing and taxes are far from the same thing. I don't consider something a gift if, should I choose not to give it, someone will come to my house and take it from me. People don't "agree" to be taxed, they consent under coersion.

Tithing and taxes are far from the same thing. I don't consider something a gift if, should I choose not to give it, someone will come to my house and take it from me. People don't "agree" to be taxed, they consent under coersion.

Not at all. Taxes are one of the costs of living within a society. You may not choose to be born into a society, but you do choose to stay there. In the West, we have a pretty good setup, overall... which is why I find it so frustrating when people complain about having to maybe contribute something in return.

Thatn logic doesn't really work, it's the same as saying if someone got raped on a camping trip with 4 others "It wasn't a bad thing, because the majority willingly agreed to it".

There is no parallel. Taxes are consensual - in as much as you accept an 'agreement'. Your society allows and grants certain things, and you allow and grant certain things in return. Your whole society 'allows' you to live within it' Your whole society 'allows' you to work and earn and spend and trade within it. One of the things you have to 'allow' in return, is that the 'provider' gets a fraction of your gains... it's a fairly standard transaction.

So taxes aren't theft, they're blackmail?

Sure, that's a lot better.
No. They're payment for the services the government provides. Nothing is free. Not paying taxes is more akin to writing a bad check than taxation is to theft.

Tithing and taxes are far from the same thing. I don't consider something a gift if, should I choose not to give it, someone will come to my house and take it from me. People don't "agree" to be taxed, they consent under coersion.
Under coersion of being provided with "free" services and infrastructure like roads, schools, and the like.

Tithing and taxes are far from the same thing. I don't consider something a gift if, should I choose not to give it, someone will come to my house and take it from me. People don't "agree" to be taxed, they consent under coersion.
The door is thataway, you know?

U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey(2004) (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2004.htm)

So you see, increasing minimum wage will not cause a huge and immediate jump in cost of living, but it will also not benefit a significant portion of the working population. Attaching unpopular bills to more popular bills is a common strategy that has been practiced since before our time either to pass the unpopular or sink the popular. It is practiced by both of the current dominant parties.

Taxes are legel forms of theft. Everyone is required to pay taxes even if they don't use the services the government provides. When someone doesn't use the share of services that they were forced to pay for in taxes and they don't receive a refund it is government condoned and enforced theft.

Taxes are not charity. Charity is a choice. Taxes are collected under threat of a penalty.

Taxes aren't theft. In a democracy taxes are charity that a society willingly agrees to. Even the Hebrews of the OT days payed taxes to their temple priests.

The Bible instructs us not to kill. I guess we should do away with those government regulations against murder, and just let people not murder because they're good people instead of giving some tyrannical government the power to make laws about it, right?

Read the Constitution. It's purpose (among other things) is to promote the general welfare. That's what the estate tax, and taxes in general, being used to finance things that, while good for the country, are not self financing.

A clearer example would be NYC meuseums. Some people argue that the government shouldn't be financing art. If people want art, they'll pay for it. If museums go broke, then clearly there's no demand for them. Thing is, if the city finances these museums then tourists come to the city to see them. The museum might not make back its operating cost, but the city recoups its loss from taxing the resteraunts, chachka stores, and income taxes from the employees of those businesses. By financing museums, the city creates jobs and increases its revenue base. Taxes are used to make the city a better place. If you're opposed to a society being able to levy taxes to create a better society, you're not an individualist, you're not a conservative, you're not a Christian. You're an asshole.

First off, since when did I say I was against taxation? I never said that ONCE. I was against the estate tax because its taking their inheritence they earned when the material there was previously taxed. Triple, quadruple taxation is not fair taxation at all.

OBVIOUSLY, taxation has to exist. However, taxation should not be used as a tool of blind vengance, which is all the "zomg tax the rich!!11" policy is. Yes, the rich should pay more in taxes. You know what? They do. If it's a 10% income tax, then they pay their fair share. If a person earns one thousand dollars, one hundred is taken. If a person earns a million dollars, then one hundred thousand is taken. Since taxation HAS to exist, best make it fair for all. The rich are people, too.

If you believe the Bible, God makes clear elsewhere that He expects human beings to care for the poor... or else. He destroyed the Temples in part because of the failure of society to care for the lower classes. Collective punishment for a collective crime - not an individual one.

And human beings should care for the poor. However, due to the inefficiency of government, I don't want government involved in caring for them. I want the PEOPLE directly to be actively involved, not an inefficient, faceless bureaucracy.

No. They're payment for the services the government provides.
I'm sure noone would have much of a problem with taxes if they weren't so massive and used to pay for so many unnecesary services.

I'm sure noone would have much of a problem with taxes if they weren't so massive and used to pay for so many unnecesary services.

That's the problem. What some people view as unnecessary are viewed as vital by someone else; it gets even more complicated when politics gets involved, because tax breaks and subsidies that look ridiculous to the average taxpayer might be a quid-pro-quo added by a Senator to reward the industry or agriculture lobbies in his home state. They're vital to him and his lobby, but ridiculous to everyone else who doesn't benefit from them.

That's the problem. What some people view as unnecessary are viewed as vital by someone else; it gets even more complicated when politics gets involved, because tax breaks and subsidies that look ridiculous to the average taxpayer might be a quid-pro-quo added by a Senator to reward the industry or agriculture lobbies in his home state. They're vital to him and his lobby, but ridiculous to everyone else who doesn't benefit from them.

Whee politics.

A dictatorship would be so much cleaner. :p

You're right about having nothing to do with spending... per se. Cuts to the estate tax are a means of allowing rich familes to become ungodly wealthy from the labor of other people without having to give back to society.


Not really. It means that there will be jobs available that those people no longer have to occupy. It means that the money that is not taxed away will get invested in job creating endeavors. Just because you are jealous does not make taking money (that has already been taxed) sound policy.

There has never been any conclusive proof that raising the minimum has ever increased unemployment, and indeed, the states with the highest minimum wages have the lowest unemployment.

That's what they tell you isn't it??? Funny how they always do their sampling in times of an expanding economy and never really do any regressions on that. EVERY SINGLE study that has done a thorough investigation on this says differently than you state.

The estate tax is a tax on inheritance, not death. It only applies to the very wealthy in our society,

So it's OK to steal from them, right????


and the money that rich heirs/heiresses "save" will not be reinvested because it is already invested in the estate of the deceased person.

It will be taken OUT of those investments if it is taxed away. Therefore my statement is correct.

So taxes aren't theft, they're blackmail?

Sure, that's a lot better.
No, they're rent.

Sounds like a good idea, until you think about the process.

If there were NO combination of articles, you would have to debate, work compromises, and submit EVERY article individually... and there just isn't anywhere near enough time for the central legislative body to address that many articles.
So then the government can't do as much. That sounds like a pretty good deal.

No. They're payment for the services the government provides. Nothing is free. Not paying taxes is more akin to writing a bad check than taxation is to theft.
What if I don't use those services? What if I don't want those services?

That the majority does isn't relevant. Letting the majority impose its will on the rest of us is exactly why democracy is the antithesis of freedom.