Minimum Wage and Estate Tax
Our two party system is at it again. Proving the "Two parties, one platform" theory, the Republicans set up a bill that would thankfully raise minimum wage, but also cut the estate tax. Now of course the working/middle class American is asking what's wrong with cutting taxes. Maybe nothing to you, but the estate tax is only a tax that hits the wealthiest of America. In the words of the government: "In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans."
So what's the problem with taxing them? There's this fear in the halls of the bourgeoiousie that if this and other taxes increase: they might have to live on the same class level as the rest of the Americans. God forbid. Poverty just isn't for them. It shouldn't be though. Their parents worked other people hard for that money, so their kids should have every right to hoard it all, sans the rest of the country.
Oh yes, the rest of the country. The same country that guarantees them freedom. Who dies for your freedom? It isn't the son of the congressman that declare the wars. It isn't the children of the generals who send them in. No, it's the people that labour for your wealth. That is who dies for your freedom to be a wealthy pig.
My point: if you want to live in America and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else, you have to give something back to the collective. If you don't want to do that, then don't expect any legal help when the proles raid your manor and take your land. And your head.
posted by k. edward warmoth @ 11:21 PM
28 Comments:
Oh, I also meant to say that they make it easier for the people who already have it all, and for the people who struggle, why bother?
mahauha
Freedom is not about cost, your making a simple mathematical problem and ethical one. Wages should be earned based on the effort of the individual, taxes should be across the board at X%. The estate tax is also unfair and so is the income tax, both are detrimental to equality.
The problem is no one can debate simple economics and keep it strictly mathematical. There is always one to bring up "What about the poor?" which turns an economical debate to a political one. The fact is I shouldn't have to pay more than anyone else to deserve the same freedoms as everyone else. It's not how the system works, and it only serves to further the gap between rich and poor as the rich will find more ways to earn capital usually by "laying off" workers.
But that doesn't work in the end, because they get 32 weeks of unemployment right out of the pockets of the people who fired them! The system is one sided for the poor, they get all the benefits off the back of the rich, while the rich are ever so crushed between taxation and regulation that they can't enjoy one moment of their aquired wealth without the IRS busting down the door demanding an "audit"
But back to economics, this is a chart to show that througha fair tax, and the disembodiment of the IRS and income tax we'd do progressivly better in the long run:
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5499/q48picvr2.png[/IMG][/URL]
Now as for minimum wage it doesn't work in cases of inflation, it doesn't help in cases of worker equality either. Most people are highered above minimum wage, and those that do receive minimum wage alone are usually 16 year olds. So you can't defend an increase in minimum wage if the majority of the population (those above 16) make more thna the minimum wage.
Creating a price floor, neglects a private businesses right to manage the way it wants to. It forces government regulation on all people therefore increasing state power in terms of government controlled business. If you think this hurts corporation you are solely mistaken! This hurts small businesses, mom and pop stores, the back bone of middle class society.
The corporations pay workers on salary stock option and commission, so they don't have to abide by minimum wage laws, but your small business doesn't have stock option and surely can't afford a commission or yearly salary so it's forced into these minimum wage and labour laws unfairly.
The problem of this system is just that, government regulation, and making economics "ethical" instead of mathematical, both have a "good will" philosophy but both fail to maximize options through utility ultimatley making the gap between rich and poor ever so wider.
Now if we took away all these regulations the gap would still grow larger but at a faster rate, until you get what's called "zero ground" this is where everyone is either rich or poor, there is no inbetween and there is no class struggle. The poor and rich become incorporated as generations pass, and evryone has education and the capitalist system should be at it's "golden age"
Because you allow this to happen you create prosperity for all, you can draw a mathematical model to prove this aswell. The trick is will we see the end of minimum wage? No, because the middle class still thinks of it as a tool that keeps them motivated despite not one of them is paid the "bare minimum" the keynesian policies are failing as we see today, as inflation is increasing in the name of full employment and utilization of good, we fail to increase money supply and aggregate demand, so we're doomed to another depression unless we do something.
So this a new Godwin's Law, in any economical debate the moment "ethics" are brought in as a substitute for mathematics, the debate is said to be lost.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
SO here is the mathematical chart, since this thing is hating HTML tags!:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/
faq-main.html#49
How can you claim the system is one sided and based on the poor? It's run by rich white men who know nothing of the poor. Taxes are cut for the wealthy and so is welfare. If you want to get rid of welfare, then raise the minimum wage, universalize medical care and do the same with ALL education.
Are you blind? Name all the social benefits the "rich" get and all the minority rights the rich get?
Now name all the minority rights and social benefits the poor get.
The thing is you juts missed the point, no one goes by minimum wage anymore unless your a teenager, it capsizes small businesses and doesn't do anything to a corporation. So by having minimum wage your essentially harming the middle class you're wanting to protect!
The socialization of programs doesn't make anything any better aswell, universal healthcare, and fre education is not essentially free. You'd therefore have a 70% tax on everyone who makes more than $30,000 a year just to pay for those things. Which is absurd because not only would I have to pay for every sick kid in America and school every kid, I have to worry about my own aswell.
That's like me setting up an experiment, I make you work all month and you get your monthly paycheck. Okay $2,600 you're doing pretty well! Guess what? You make $31,200 a year so here comes the 70% tax. That means out of all that earned you get to keep $9360 divide that into the months, $780 a month or $195 a week.
Now keep in mind you have to buy food, shelter, all the nessicities you need in life these arn't going to be free. THere's no way you'll find a appartment below $500, so that means all you have left is $280 for utilities, food, clothing, communications, entertainment, fuel the list goes on.
Truth is your not going to make it and if you do well, it's a very dismal existance. This is exactly what these things do to the wealthy., they will need to sell their homes their cars, basically give up their entire lives just to pay the IRS. They will still be in the red as they become equated ebcause all the back taxes.
This system is not fair if your stripping people from thier land, their homes, and their live. There's no liberty there's only suffering.
No one goes by minimum wage? Bullshit. I have family members who lack education who are stuck on it. Now, I know you are fine with letting them die in the streets, but I don't feel the same way.
Millions of Americans live on minimum wage.
Also, you're right that there are no printed rights to the rich, but they get the priveleges of holding all the power.
And I have no problem with forcing the rich to sell a few of their cars. God forbid they have to live like us.
Okay 2% of population decides the candidates in elections? YOU elect the 2% of the population they don't force themselves onto some imperial throne.
God forbid I don't seize all your property! I think you'd be pissed if I kicked down your door and jacked all your families assets, took the money from their bank account then to add insult to injury still say they are $35,000 behind. Therefore giving me legal right to lock them up for "failure to pay"
It's the golden rule, you wouldn't like me taking everything away from you, so don't wish it on others.
As for your family are they are the BARE MINIMUM? I'm talking no state assistance, and earning $5.65? I'll tell you what my dad didn't graduate highschool or get a GED for that matter, and he makes 3 times the minimum wage, infact he hasn't received minimum since he was right out of highschool. The fact is no really is paid bare minimum anymore.
Here's a ethical question for you? If your dad your mom your grandparents (assuming their alive) won the lottery made 22 million? Would you contempt them just as you do the wealthy who are not your family?
Would you go to your 75 year old grandma and yell in her face of the social injustices she's bearing down on everyone else? In the revolution you seek if it happens are you willing to kill your family for winning the money therefore becoming a "elite" in society?
Golden rule my friend, golden rule.
Even though my parents rarely play the lotto, yes I would be disgusted with having that money, unless we could do something good with it.
And who's to say the people elect the power? Last I heard, the guy who one the majority in 2000 wasn't President.
For one thing Jimmy your full of shit. When it comes to the estate tax it’s about personal income and when it comes to the minimum wage. State that have higher minimum wages then the federal standard are doing better economically then other states that have the status quo of the federal level. You can spout well it's numbers like fucking Economics is always a black and white issues. If you believe so then you can have the invisible hand come jack you off. The reason why pure Capitalism will never work is the same reason why communism will never work. People by nature are greedy. We have a Republic that has that mix of socialism and Capitalism. During the summers I've worked at IGA and CVS and let me tell you the viewpoint that the people who are poor are getting the better end of the deal is a load of shit. This is the dumbest shit I've heard since Forbes wanted the dumb flat tax and look how far that shit got him. Stop looking at your damn High School Economics book as a damn ref. Jimmy to put it simple try living on 5.15 an hour even if you work 60 hours a week you're still making jack shit to live on. The reason why the rich are "crushed" by taxation and regulation is because they've as history has shown a ability to not be ethical. Shit look at the 80's with Reganomics and how deregulation works. Screwing of the poor, the downsizing of companies that merge because they're allowed to in deregulation. Do me a favor stop sticking your head up Greenspans ass and look at the other complexities of "Economics" before you spew any of your half ass researched bullshit.
You're better off on welfare sometimes than minimum wage.
Keith, you cursed more than anyone I've ever met on this blogging website, kind of refreshing! Since you are the "Economics master" and you shout out that "pure" capitalism never works, might I point you to the following nations policies thoughout history:
Chile during the reign of General Augusto Pinochet.
19th Century United States
I know minimum wage is part of income tax, but he railed on about both the estate tax and minimum wage. In your rant however, you say people are naturally greedy so wouldn't a "pure capitalist" economy feed that need?
What was wrong with Reaganomics? Sure it marginalized the gap between rich and poor but any system can do that, this only occured at a faster rate. Supply side worked quite well, it allowed economic freedom by limiting government control which is a GREAT thing, because I don't have the IRS banging at my door for audits.
What states have a higher status quo than Federal? I guarentee they are the ones "High in bad things, low in good things" I will admit higher wage will be better if 80% of your population is uneducated and does menial work. In areas like New York City, Seattle, Boston, etc. The wage is near default.
It just seems that in a drunken rage you happened to stumble across this then decided to blast everything I said. Despite you don't have any statement to back it up and you are just railing on with pseudo-intellectual garbage.
By the way what the fuck is wrong with the Flat-Tax, it eases up the tax burden for all people and retains a constant amount of revenue for social programs. People that support progresive taxes, really just like handouts by the government because they don't have to pay them much.
Yeah just keep sucking that government cock maybe soon it'll let you invite your friends to do the same...
If you really doubt the whole "supply side" and praise minimum wage things like that I suggest you look at:
http://www.mises.org/
I wish I was a hard ass like Keith! I bet I could get all the ladies! I submit to him he knows EVERYTHING, I mean he totally schooled me in ecnomics and that's my major lol! Man he must be like a political genius...
Keith will you suck my cock? PLEASE! I want your holy man slobber to grace me so that I can grow up and be a successful "CVS" employee! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Give me the honour!
I doubt Chile was a true capitalsim. I believe the military wasn't privatized.
Wow Jimmy never heard of summer jobs I take it. Sucessful CVS employee ooooo good one your going to fucking Vincennes. I was at Vincennes before I realized it was a waste of time for what I wanted to do. Jimmy are you going to VU because it's has a great econ department no I think it's because you couldn't get in anywhere else. VU only thing most people go there for are Broadcasting (the reason I went) and Law Enforcement. Or like said above couldn't get into another college. Don't ever talk down to me like I'm a dumbass.
When you have a $2,000 scholarship specifically FOR VU, I'd rather not waste it or hand it up. So I'm just using the money up for first year then transfering over to IU. Which IU has a GREAT economics dept!
College is even about economics, you maximize your options. VU is half IU's tuition and I have a scholarship there and for the most part I'm doing general studies (High school repeat) so it'd be a waste of:
A) Scholarship money
B) My loan money
C) My first year at IU
If I wen't directly into IU...
Don't talk down to you like a dumbass? I'm not! Why would I ever do that? I mean you came in hear guns a blazing at my pro-capitalist posts, you're right I'm sorry I should have never questioned your intelligence or lack of reasonable evidence! I am sooo dumb
I r sry!
You also deleted all my posts from your blog! Your so mean!
Nah the Junta of Chile, was pretty much a dictatorship, although he enacted several policies leading toa very laissez-faire economy. Basically taking the words of Milton Friedman he created a utopia for capitalism.
Much like Hong Kong today Chile had little government influence in terms of economics which is responsible for the huge growth of GDP and the viability of industry. On the downside, in order to keep this economy he had to systematically kill socialists and people who believed in socialist ideals pretty much alienating the lower class.
I'm not saying the Chilean government was perfect by any means, but was a bastion of free enterprise.
Your also right about Welfare, some people can do better on Welfare than the current wage status but it's not because of minimum but rather the tax system. The chart I showed you would best benefit all classes, by giving the rich a little more to spend increasing agregate demand, and evening out the tax toward the lower spectrum therefore stimulating economic growth on both fronts.
So combine the flat tax with a minimum wage removal and a implementation of individualized working contracts and we have ourself a cure to economic ills for middle America.
What about lower, manual labour America?
The fair tax money would go to the lower class, since the other two classes are taxed less, the money earned would funnel into the lower class bringing them up. Not quite a trickle down theory, but more of the lines of tax redistribution.
Since I have less of a range to distribute it should much easier to get the money to those who need it. Now I'm not saying welfare in the sense of food stamps, but a worker managment fund. The government uses the tax money to train the individuals for the job market, or the government uses the money to put these people to work.
I therefore term the government into a functional labour machine, as many low end government jobs are unfufilled it would be perfect in terms of controlling unemployment, inflation, and tax oppression.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Have you seen the mathematical model? The increase in revenue for rich isn't that much. The increase in revenue for middle class however is very good. If you look at the current tax bracket it's upper middle class families who are hurt most by our current tax system not the richest Americans.
It's all about income redistribution to tell you the trith, it's not about where we get the money it's how we use it. The fact is a fair tax and proper balance to the Congress's spending, and new worker programs would work far better than the current system.
THe average median income based on four regions (South, Midwest, West, North East) is roughly $44,529.25, which the tax effective percentage is 10.3% at a 23% tax bracket. Under our current tax system anyone between $29,700-$71-950 is at a 25% bracket, which the tax effectiveness would be for a income of $44,529.25 around 11%.
Not much of a increase but this is for everyone through that tax bracket. Under the fair tax we'd reduce the burden of taxes for these low income families and middle class citizens while retaining a steady revenue.
The rich have a vital role, the more money they receive the more they will invest and the market will continue to work. The process of rich investing allows businesses both large and small to flourish. Which directly effect the well being of lower class citizens. So the intricities of the market would depend on the despensable income of the wealthy. Now that we can trickle this depsenable income down to the middle class more good will be bought as demand would increase so supply would naturally balance out.
This leads to cheaper more efficent goods for all people. So the fair tax system benefits everyone in the U.S economy and is essentially good for both the poor and the wealthy.
Quite an interesting discussion.
I think the minimum wage thing, is rhetoric for the Democrats. It gives them a rhetorical advantage over the GOP.
That's pretty much what it is, if they said they we're going to "abolish it" which would actually help the economy and middle class alot more than raising it, the first party to say that would get hit with a stigma, no matter how much proof you give the other party will twist it and make you seem like the "bad guy"
Raising it doesn't do any good it'll lead to lay offs, stricter business policy, and inflation wouldn't be subjective. Both parties won't do anything good on behalf of the U.S because of they are afraid to lose, a bunch of cowards if you ask me!
Under the FairTax plan, everyone pays the 23 percent tax on everything, but "every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services." The rebate is given out each month, and is based on family size and the poverty level. But like the current tax code, the FairTax can also function as a tool for income redistribution because "the poor [will] actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes.
Sounds like a plan!
Post a Comment
<< Home