http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/republicans-in-congress-c_b_26248.html
On the surface this argument seems to make sense. And it is a common argument. Too bad he is using the classic "straw man". The Inheritance Tax objections are not about WHO is affected...they are about the principles behind the taxes themselves. Paraphrasing a famous quote, it has been said, "If I do not argue against injustice to others, who will argue against injustice to me?"
I do not know (or care) who this Robert J. Elisberg is, but his broad anti-Republican justification assumes why they would all vote against it. Well, then it is fair, (and just as inaccurate and stupid) to paint all Democrats with the same brush: they just hate people who are more successful than they are and are going to penalize them for that success.
I will state it again for clarity:it does not matter if the estate tax affects 50%, 2%, or 2 people...an injustice to even 1 person is an injustice. And because of the nonsense of precedent in legal matters...it DOES in fact affect you even if you will not be leaving 2 million or more.
The argument here seems to be "they have lots of money and are therefore evil" or "They have lots of money and therefore deserve to have it taken from them and given to those of us who were less talented and/or less ambitious and/or less lucky".
And the U.S. government has historically proven it is reliable in one regard: if they can screw 1 segment of the population they will expand that screwing to everyone. It might "only" affect 2% of people today but if allowed to expand it will screw everyone some day.
Fortunately for Mr. Elisberg, since it doesn't affect him, truth and integrity are not worth defending. Also, one would think, should apply to the civil rights movement: judging by his picture he isn't black, so it shouldn't matter to him. Although I suspect he would say "that's different". As do many people whose argument solely rests on emotion.
Of course, he doesn't just talk emotion..he also talks "lost revenue". This is the same bull-smurf reasoning as used by the idiots running the schools and talking about "budget cuts" when they receive several percentage points more money. But since they ask for, as an example, a 10% increase but receive only 8% they call it a 2% cut. With that sort of lying statistic...my salary was cut 50% when I got a raise a few months ago. I wanted to double it and did not get it...how can I live with a 50% cut? Oh, I know it LOOKS like I got more money...how could you think the simple fact I have more money means anything OTHER than I took a cut? How dumb are you?
Oh, but of course I don't have the lie of "But it's for the children" to back my emotional appeal, so I doubt I will make much progress with that. Once I have kids and can ask for say a 10% raise so they can have new Nikes when they play basketball but receive only 1% I will be able to say "I got a 9% cut in pay and now can't take care of my kids properly" by which I mean now we eat at Sizzler instead of Ruth's Crhis Steak House.
And the next part of his writing is even worse. I have long stood against the constant and ridiculously rapid rise in minimum wage. I feel like one of the old codgers..."When I was first working we only got paid $2.85 an hour...and we liked it". I did see the increases to 3.35 and 3.85 and 4.15 and a few others...I lost track after a while because it got discouraging...the minimum wage incresed increased the prices of the stuff I bought AND put me in a higher tax bracket...that's right, increased wages often meant less net money in my pocket. I have written here before how I have personally felt the pinch every time it raises...I do not receive a commensurate raise anymore but I still get to pay extra for bread, milk, gas, fast food...so every time minimum wage raises, my standard of living decreases. Hard to believe I am strongly, strongly against a minimum wage increase...why WOULDN'T I want my life to get more difficult?
But he talks about supporting a "family" on minimum wage. Without getting into the ethical question, which is clouded on many fronts, the REALITY is that no "family" has 1 wage-earner. Both spouses work. So arguing a family is supported on just minimum wage is very deceptive. First off, no doubt both halves are working, so the wage, more often than not, is double what is claimed...which is well above the poverty line. Second, they also doubtless are the beneficiaries of foodstamps and other welfare...I have been amazed at the housing assistance and so forth. I actually could live better if I made less money due to all the assistance that would be available.
Of course, that becomes self-fulfilling. Because the assistance is available and those workers need to find more need less they become less funded, there is a very real disincentive to make things more affordable. Hence the rising minimum wage causes more need for assistance which leads to more assistance which leads to higher prices which leads to a need for a higher minimum wage which causes more need for assistance...
The upshot is, his statement that the minimum wage is below the poverty line, besides being a crock of smurf based on his assumption they are the only family in America where just one parent works, is further destroyed by the indisuptable reality they are living just fine with help from the Oregon Trail card (because using a credit card to pay instead of stamps somehow fools everyone else into thinking the buzzards aren't living off my taxes and their self-esteem isn't harmed. (The thought that maybe, just maybe, if you sloughed your way through school and/or dropped out, have no ambition, and have rendered yourself unemployable, whether through laziness in or out of school or destroying your mind with drugs you should not, in fact, still have high self esteem seems to have escaped the geniuses who think everyone should have a good opinion of themselves...and yes, this is different than people who, through no fault of their own, lost better jobs or were injured, things like that.)
I find it funny that I do, in fact, earn money well above the poverty line...and live worse than families making below it because I make too much to get that assistance. So while I can't really afford the cable tv and beer every Friday night type thing....by all means, make their life "better" so they can get another tatoo and smoke another cigarette and complain about people like me.
His last line about who the Republicans work for...well, while I certainly am no fan of theirs, I have to say i am more on their side of the fence than the Democrats who apparently are out there working for the laziest pieces of human crap walking the face of the earth today. Or at least growing on its couches...they don't seem to walk much.
edit: looking back I think I wrote pretty angry. the condescension of that dude really gets under my skin. it is easy by misrepresenting your opponent, such as he did, and building straw men to ignore their valid points and make them look insipid...much as he appears to me. So maybe the writing was a little too angry...then again, that is what people and attitudes like his bring out in me. So be it.
4 years ago
6 comments:
You wrote: I have long stood against the constant and ridiculously rapid rise in minimum wage.
I respond: How can you say it's constant and ridiculous, when it hasn't happened on a federal level since 1997? Could you live on $5.15 an hour? Do you expect anyone else to? Businesses, large and small, charge more money for their products for any reason they can think of - or no reason at all, even - provided that they can get away with it. It's the rule of the free market. Has a low federal minimum wage prevented the cost of gas from rising? How about the cost of utilities? And do you really think that some poor shmuck doesn't deserve $7.25 an hour? Don't you see a connection between our outrageous power bill increases and the fact that the CEO of PGE got a $400,000 "performance bonus" last year, in addition to her seven figure salary?
What does go up is the cost of things like health care, because people end up in the ER and we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill. We wouldn't need the programs you have referenced, like food stamps, for working people if they made a living wage.
Additionally, several major cities have adopted "living wage" laws and they haven't seen a dramatic increase in the cost of living, nor have businesses stopped moving in.
Heard a statistic today that less than 3% of people earning minimum wage are below the poverty line. 80% are unmarried. 90% have no children. Kind of screws up that whole "living wage" concept huh? But where do people get the idea that just because they have a job entitles them to a wage that they can live on? What is a wage that you can live on? I'm sure that those "poor schmucks" in (I'm ashamed that I can't remember the name of the country right now. It's one in Africa that Drew references often) Africa would love the opportunity to live in our gutters and make enough to buy themselves bread and lunch meat. I could easily live on hot dogs and water if it were neccessarry. If the idea of a "minimum wage" is truly a living wage, then the problem is in the definition of a living wage. Go live in Sri Lanka for a few weeks. Then come back here and tell me if you wouldn't be absolutley thrilled to be making $5.15 an hour.
"What does go up is the cost of things like health care, because people end up in the ER and we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill. We wouldn't need the programs you have referenced, like food stamps, for working people if they made a living wage."
...or if we weren't living under a system where you steal from those who are productive to give to those who are unproductive. I would be much more inclined to give some money to the bum on the corner, if I weren't already having a third of my paycheck taken so that he could stand there doing nothing all day and still eat as well as I do.
"I respond: How can you say it's constant and ridiculous, when it hasn't happened on a federal level since 1997?"
He can say that because in Oregon it has been whether it was in the Fed or not. About a year after I got hired in my current job I got a $0.50 raise. It sounds good, but during that time minimum wage went up by about the same amount. I started at about $0.75 above minimum wage. You're trying to tell me that didn't affect me? I could have sworn that it did...
Incidentally,
"Businesses, large and small, charge more money for their products for any reason they can think of - or no reason at all, even - provided that they can get away with it. It's the rule of the free market."
"Additionally, several major cities have adopted "living wage" laws and they haven't seen a dramatic increase in the cost of living, nor have businesses stopped moving in."
So they will increase for any reason they can find, but not for minimum wage... I don't follow you...
Fuller: you always take the right wing position, so this is no surprise.
But consider the following.
Going to live in Sri Lanka has what to do with minimum wage? Because people are homeless and miserable elsewhere, poor people here should be grateful to subsist? Are those the only two options?
Where are the 3%, 80%, 90% statistics from? Do you know what the poverty level is for a single person? It's the equivalent of $4.64 an hour. Look it up. The government keeps the "poverty level" artificially low so they don't have to let people qualify for things like food stamps. Which you apparently don't want to see in existence anyway, even though the majority of people who benefit from that program are 1) children and 2) the elderly.
And as for Africans who would be "happy to live in our gutters" - just because they're even poorer than our working poor, does that make it OK? In a country as rich as ours, do you think it's OK for people to go hungry?
As for "stealing from the productive to give to those who are unproductive", define unproductive. How about those who are disabled? Aren't they "unproductive"?
And lastly, although I doubt that you are in a 33% tax bracket, that "third of your paycheck" isn't going to support "the unproductive" - most of it is going to support the department of defense.
Look it up.
"Going to live in Sri Lanka has what to do with minimum wage? Because people are homeless and miserable elsewhere, poor people here should be grateful to subsist? Are those the only two options?"
The short answer would be yes. To go into it a little deeper however, I was making the point that you can survive on a lot less than what people seem to think they are owed in this country simply because they draw breath.
"Do you know what the poverty level is for a single person? It's the equivalent of $4.64 an hour. Look it up. The government keeps the "poverty level" artificially low so they don't have to let people qualify for things like food stamps."
Really? Growing up we were always below the official poverty level and I don't think dad ever made that little. He did however (I can only be certain of what he was making at the end of his full-time work because I was too young to be interested before then) support me, my other borther(not Drew), my sister and himself on right around $1,000 a month. He also always found a way to give to others who were less fortunate. Most people today don't seem to think a single person can survive on less than $20,000 a year. The federal poverty level is about $9,000 a year for a single person. It's actually closer to $4.15 an hour if you are assuming a 40 hour work week. As for the statistics I mentioned before, I heard them on the Victoria Taft show either yesterday or the day before (August 1st or 2nd). I thought she had said she would link where she got her info on her site but I couldn't locate it. Also, those are general figures as I was not listening for exact ones at the time.
"And as for Africans who would be "happy to live in our gutters" - just because they're even poorer than our working poor, does that make it OK? In a country as rich as ours, do you think it's OK for people to go hungry?"
Did I ever once say anything of the sort? No. What I am saying is that you have no right to steal from me to pay for their care. If you are so terribly troubled by there plight (which is noble), you do something about it. Don't expect others to do it for you.
"As for "stealing from the productive to give to those who are unproductive", define unproductive. How about those who are disabled? Aren't they "unproductive"?"
Yes they are, and I would make the same argument as before. If you have a problem with their condition, you do something about it. Feel free to ask me to help too. But don't come at me and threaten to throw me in jail if I don't use a portion of what I earn to help them.
"And lastly, although I doubt that you are in a 33% tax bracket,"
You're right. I actually have about 16% of my paycheck taken before I see it. Of course, I am right at the official poverty level...
Incidentally, the last federal minimum wage increase was in 96-97. It was one of Clinton's "great victories" as I recall.
Also, consider this: In 1988, Wahington state minimum wage was $3.35. Today it is $7.63. Why? Because when you increase minimum wage, you increase the cost of living faster than any other method you could possibly use (unless you were deliberately trying to). When the cost of living goes up - if your only solution is to wage minimum wage - you restart the cycle. So the minimum wage has more than doubled over the course of 18 years.
And in closing "Fuller: you always take the right wing position, so this is no surprise."
A) It's F-u-l-l-U-r
B) Yes, I do take that position. Ever wonder why it's called the "right" wing? ;)
C)I would suggest/request that you consider these links:
http://www.mises.org/story/2130
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm
FullUr: You aren't going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.
What I find sad is the fact that someone as young is you is as cynical and apparently unconcerned about the plight of people who have few resources as you appear to be. A friend of mine earns $20,000 a year and supports his spouse and two kids. Just for kicks, he looked up what they'd get if they applied for food stamps (they didn't), and guess what - it would be a whopping $23 a month.
It makes me sad that you would apparently rather see people go hungry than get a better wage. And if you read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, you will see studies that say more than 80 percent of Americans believe, when asked in polls, that a person who works full-time should be paid enough money to support a family. The minority, including you, apparently believe they should either have to starve or live in the gutter. I, on the other hand, am dumb and naive enough to take Christ's message of feeding the poor and clothing the naked seriously.
I never said people should get money "just for drawing breath." Most CEOs tend to do that, however.
As for doing something for the hungry and the disabled, although I don't see why I should have to make a point here, my husband and I contribute to a host of charities and do volunteer work. I founded an annual food drive in the community where I used to work and spurred a community roundtable about transportation options for the disabled.
As for families barely making it, although again, I see no need to get into a pissing contest here, I lived with my mom and my brother when she was working minimum wage at a retail job. My dad lived on bananas and soup and was only able to keep his overtime so he could send his meager paycheck for child support.
As for research, according to the federal government's 2004 estimates, the poverty level for an individual is a bit over $9K - and divided by a 40-hour week, it comes out to $4.655 an hour.
"FullUr: You aren't going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you."
Probably true, but it's fun to put forth the arguments anyway. :)
"What I find sad is the fact that someone as young is you is as cynical and apparently unconcerned about the plight of people who have few resources as you appear to be. A friend of mine earns $20,000 a year and supports his spouse and two kids. Just for kicks, he looked up what they'd get if they applied for food stamps (they didn't), and guess what - it would be a whopping $23 a month."
You're not really getting what I am saying. You are either ignoring it, twisting it or just misunderstanding, but regardless you're not getting what I am saying. I do care that people starve. Considering how much it appalls us Americans as a people that anyone should starve, the arguments that the woman on life support who was then starved to death by removing the life support was receiving a "non-painful and dignified death" seem pretty ridiculous. (I know. 100% off topic, but the same political groups pushing the m-wage are the ones who pushed that idea.) If you look close at my last post, I mentioned that my dad was supporting the same number on less money than your friend. We may have qualified for assistance, but I sincerely doubt dad would have taken it unless it meant us kids would starve otherwise.
"It makes me sad that you would apparently rather see people go hungry than get a better wage. And if you read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich, you will see studies that say more than 80 percent of Americans believe, when asked in polls, that a person who works full-time should be paid enough money to support a family. The minority, including you, apparently believe they should either have to starve or live in the gutter. I, on the other hand, am dumb and naive enough to take Christ's message of feeding the poor and clothing the naked seriously."
I take Christ's message seriously as well. He also said not to steal. That's very interesting about the poll. It also helps prove my point that people in this country largely have the mentality that, "I breathe, therefore I deserve what I want." Well, this country wasn't founded on the principals of forcing people to help each other whether they want to or not. It was founded on the idea that we should have freedom. Freedom to succeed or fail because of what we do in life, not because of who our parents are. Incidentally, does being in the minority make me wrong? Is the inverse true? Then why bring it up?
"I never said people should get money "just for drawing breath." Most CEOs tend to do that, however."
I didn't say you did. I said that, "most people seem to think" that. And people don't start (most of the time) as CEOs. They start at the bottom and work their way up. Bill Gates started in his home garage.
"As for doing something for the hungry and the disabled, although I don't see why I should have to make a point here, my husband and I contribute to a host of charities and do volunteer work. I founded an annual food drive in the community where I used to work and spurred a community roundtable about transportation options for the disabled."
I wasn't saying that you don't do anything for those less fortunate. I was saying that you have no right to force me to. It sounds like you are very active in helping them. That's wonderful. Seriously. My dad helped out a lot of families back when he was able to. I was always proud of that. I haven't had a great deal of opportunity to do similar things, but considering how self-absorbed I am, I probably wouldn't take advantage of them anyway...
"As for families barely making it, although again, I see no need to get into a pissing contest here, I lived with my mom and my brother when she was working minimum wage at a retail job. My dad lived on bananas and soup and was only able to keep his overtime so he could send his meager paycheck for child support."
Bummer.
"As for research, according to the federal government's 2004 estimates, the poverty level for an individual is a bit over $9K - and divided by a 40-hour week, it comes out to $4.655 an hour."
My apologies. The report I saw yesterday said a bit under $9k. Even at that though, I miscalculated. (Pretty sad since I was using a calculator :P)
In closing:
I'm not trying to get in a "pissing contest." I am not trying to slam you or make you look evil or stupid. I don't think that would work very well if I did. I am trying to engage in honest debate. I think you probably are too. I am trying to make a few simple points. 1st)Minimum wage doesn't work and is in fact detrimental. 2nd) Stealing from (taxing) people to give to other people is not only not the job of the government, it's immoral.
By the way, while I was correcting you, the FullUr bit was an attempt at levity. Apparently it was a failure...
Post a Comment