Unemployment rate hits 5-month high
POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 8 of 11
Quote:Ah...Geezer, so it really IS as I said! Nice to know that I'm not reading you wrong.
How much of the inheritance you worked all your life to provide your children do you think the Government deserves to get?
The repeal of the estate tax is near and dear to your heart. It has nothing to do with the minimum wage, does it?Now I gotta go live my real life.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks to Sygm, for posting the details of the estate tax...I was looking them over myself before following up.
Sharing is a despicable obligation, I agree. Sorry you got stuck with a brother and a sister.
I thought that was the system in place...there are insentives and tax breaks in the estate tax system I believe, that eases the burden on those who inherited small businesses and wish to keep them in the family, rather than selling them. Yeah, just found them, enacted in 1998.
What would your solution be to curbing a decadent defacto regal class in this country?
Don't think that exists? Look at what we elected. Now how the fuck did he get there? HOw many businesses has he been allowed to run into the ground? How many times do you get to fail as a rich person and still be grossly rich?
Jesus, and you guys call things like welfare and affirmative action 'entitlement programs?'
"Why should somebody else get my daddy's money...I"m the one who deserves it."
How about because your daddy was able to earn that money because of the american infrastructure, not in-spite of it. How about because other people deserve that opportunity as well...
and don't give me that two-faced line about that tax money not going to good causes, while you go ahead and vote for motherfuckers that have every intention of undermining said cuases. You are enabling the misuse of that money and then saying it doesn't work - pathetic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Trying to clear up some misinformation about estate tax.
...the loss of Federal revenues is not $6 billion, as Geezer posted. It's as high as $61 billion. www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/05/t
ax_cuts_shameful_sham/
AndQuote:www.cbpp.org/6-5-06tax.htm
Making permanent the repeal of the estate tax after 2010 — as proposed by the President and as passed by the House last year — would add nearly $1 trillion to the deficit between fiscal years 2012 and 2021, the first ten years in which the full costs of extending repeal would be reflected in the budget. This cost includes $776 billion of lost revenues and $213 billion of higher interest payments on the national debt.
Also www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-30-irs-ourview_x.htm
I tend to get my information from sources a little less partisan than editorials, so it's not surprising they are different.
IRS SOI reports show that the total Estate Tax assessed for 2004 (last year I can find figures) is just $21.5 billion. You can find a spreadsheet of Estimated Tax info here. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96442,00.html
The JCT's breakdown of revenue impact of HR 5970 is here. http://www.house.gov/jct/x-34-06.pdf
Be aware that this estimate is based on the difference between the new bill and revenues if the current estate tax cuts were allowed to expire when the estate tax provision of the EGTRRA of 2001 sunsets in 2009. That's not likely to happen, so the impact would probably be quite a bit less.
Quote:
And since the bill would DECREASE minimum wage for tipped employees, which could affect as many as 5 million workers, the overall benefit of increasing the minimum wage is not nearly as high as a back-of-the envelope calculation based on the number of minimum wage workers.
Haven't found a government source for the number of tipped workers, but the anti-bill editorials tend to put it at 5 million nationwide. Since the "Tipped Wage Fairness" provison only impacts the seven states where tips are not included in minimum wage calculations, the 5 mil is somewhat exaggerated.
Also, it seems that there is some confusion about the provision (Sect.402, at the bottom of the bill) since its language is typically lawyerish. http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr5970.html Needless to say, the editorials take the worst interpretation. Apparently, the bill's authors were willing to clarify.
Quote:
So Geezer, since you just said that the bill was about as far as you would go, based on an estimated cost of $6 billion (your figure, not mine) in revenues and an estimated benefit of about $6 billion when the increase is fully in effect, but on closer examination the cost is higher by a factor of 3 to 10 and the benefits are lower by about a fact of 2... would you w/draw your support of this bill?
Actually, I don't think I ever estimated the total benefits, just examples for individuals. Maybe I did. But lets do it (perhaps again). Your Boston Globe article cites 13 million as the number of "hard-working Americans" who would be helped by a minimum wage increase. Lets say that on the average, these people work six months of the year (1000 hrs), and already make $6.20/hr, half way between the old and new minimums. So 16 million folk x 1000 hrs x $1.05/hr increase = $13.65 billion. Even using what I think are pretty conservative figures, that's a pretty good benefit ($1,050.00 per person avg.) for that 13 million folks.
And the thing is, it's not just a comparison of dollars anyway. I believe that money going directly to the people, in the form of increased wages, provides more benefit than money going into the government's coffers.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The repeal of the estate tax is near and dear to your heart. It has nothing to do with the minimum wage, does it?
Not really. I haven't got near enough money to worry about having to pay it. I just don't take it as a personal affront that rich people are rich. That seems to be a motif of this thread, that the rich are guilty of something just by being rich, and should pay some sort of extra penalty for their good fortune. I figure that if they earned it they should get to keep it (after income tax, of course) just like everyone else.
On the other hand, I'd really like to see the minimum wage go up and boost the income of some of my relations.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer-
Quote:Just because it's an edtorial doesn't mean it's inaccurate. But whether you credit my sources or not, you dismiss YOUR OWN sources out-of-hand when they don't fit your argument. (see below)
I tend to get my information from sources a little less partisan than editorials.
Quote:THE VERY LINK THAT YOU POSTED SHOWS a revenue loss steadily increasing from 2007 up to a $62 billion revenue loss in 2016, and a CUMULATIVE loss of $310 billion over 9 years. You wave your wand and say "that's not likely to happen" and dimiss it from your estimates. WTF??? What moist orifice did you pull THAT out of???
The JCT's breakdown of revenue impact of HR 5970 is here. http://www.house.gov/jct/x-34-06.pdf
Be aware that this estimate is based on the difference between the new bill and revenues if the current estate tax cuts were allowed to expire when the estate tax provision of the EGTRRA of 2001 sunsets in 2009. That's not likely to happen so the impact would probably be quite a bit less.
Quote:Okay Geezer, since you seem to be having difficulty scrolling up a little to find what you said, it was
Actually, I don't think I ever estimated the total benefits
Quote:Hmmm, let's see... can I calculate a total benefit from that info? $4000/year X 2 milllion people= $8 billion TOTAL BENEFIT. YEP! Math works!
Now figure the tax benefits (not to mention the social benefits) of having two million people earning an extra $2.10 and hour ($80.40 a week, $4,000.00 a year). Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
But now you're changing your assumptions:
Quote:Less, let's see...tipped workers in seven states Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington includes the big tourist states of CA and NV- could lose as much as $5/hour. Let's say that these seven states account for about 1/5 of the tipped workers and that the average loss is about $3/hour and that these workers work half-time (1000 hours/ year). I think these are pretty minimal figures. That means a total minimum LOSS of $3 billion. Oh yeah, that's a good deal!!!
So 16 million folk x 1000 hrs x $1.05/hr increase = $13.65 billion. Even using what I think are pretty conservative figures, that's a pretty good benefit ($1,050.00 per person avg.) for that 13 million folks.
And now we come to the nub of our disagreement- Quote:I didnt' say that you would personally benefit from it. I'm just saying you have an ideological bent against estate taxes in ANY amount because the gummint can't be trusted with money. Which kind of indicates that you don't think ANY taxes should be paid either...
The repeal of the estate tax is near and dear to your heart. It has nothing to do with the minimum wage, does it?-Signy
Not really. I haven't got near enough money to worry about having to pay it.- Geezer
Quote:No, they should pay extra into the system to the economy from collapsing. Progressive tax and social security and unemployment came into being as a result of the Great Depression. It does seem strange that on the one hand you keep talking about how the government ("the system") works and on the other hand that it can't be trusted with money. Which makes me wonder what your REAL agenda is vis a vis the role of government in the economy. Are you a "starve the beast" kind of guy? Or just an anti-Democrat kind of guy?
I just don't take it as a personal affront that rich people are rich. That seems to be a motif of this thread, that the rich are guilty of something just by being rich, and should pay some sort of extra penalty for their good fortune.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Real world got in my way and probably will for the next couple of days (nothing serious, just busy) so I haven't responded. And the conversation has moved on quite a bit. But I wanted to address a few points.
Oh, and, where the hell did all the crazy come from? (wrt to the thread explosion in RWED)
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
As noted in the Tax Foundation site I linked, the folks with more income already pay the most taxes. The top 5% in income pay around 21% of their taxable income in income tax. The bottom 50% pay 3%. So the tax rates are already pretty progressive. The rich pay more of their income as taxes, by quite a bit, than the middle class or the poor.
Well, this is definitely an area where we're going to disagree. The top 1% have a third of the wealth (from 2001) so I don't see a problem with the top 1% shouldering up to a third of the income tax burden. Next 4% control another quarter of the wealth in the US. And so on down the line.
It's really simplistic but it's the point where I would be starting from. Those who benefit the most and have the most pay back to the system the most.
While I'm on the topic of revamping the tax system I'd also try to use tax policy to stimulate recruitment in various professions. Work as a nurse? No taxes for you. Work for the fire department? No taxes for you either. Some way to acknowledge that there are certain professions that provide above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty value to the country as a whole.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because it's an edtorial doesn't mean it's inaccurate.
Doesn't mean it is either. I prefer to use sources which provide hard data rather than those which throw around numbers with no explanation of how they're developed. I could probably have gone to some site with a conservative bent and found figures that support my points better, but I'd rather have objective information. How 'bout you?
Quote:
But whether you credit my sources or not, you dismiss YOUR OWN sources out-of-hand when they don't fit your argument.
Hardly. I'm familiar enough with the JCT costing procedure to know how it works. Estimates are always made based on the assumption that any related laws which have sunset provisions would be allowed to sunset if the legislation in question were not passed. The number of times these related laws actually are allowed to sunset can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Hence, the impact is pretty much always less than the estimate.
Quote:
And now we come to the nub of our disagreement-Quote:No, they should pay extra into the system to (keep?) the economy from collapsing.
... That seems to be a motif of this thread, that the rich are guilty of something just by being rich, and should pay some sort of extra penalty for their good fortune.
Why just the rich? Shouldn't everyone be responsible for keeping the economy from collapsing? The rich already pay a larger percent of their income as income taxes.
No. I stand by my premise that you think the rich owe something extra over their fair share just because they have more money than you, whereas I think they should pay their income tax like everyone else and leave it at that.
If you want to propose a change in the tax rates to get more money to save the economy from collapsing, be my guest. Just keep it sort of fair.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Well, this is definitely an area where we're going to disagree. The top 1% have a third of the wealth (from 2001) so I don't see a problem with the top 1% shouldering up to a third of the income tax burden. Next 4% control another quarter of the wealth in the US. And so on down the line.
You'll be pretty happy then. The top 1% pay 34.27% of the tax, and the 2 thru 5% pay 20.09%. At least in 2003.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Quote:
t's really simplistic but it's the point where I would be starting from. Those who benefit the most and have the most pay back to the system the most.
They do.
Quote:
While I'm on the topic of revamping the tax system I'd also try to use tax policy to stimulate recruitment in various professions. Work as a nurse? No taxes for you. Work for the fire department? No taxes for you either. Some way to acknowledge that there are certain professions that provide above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty value to the country as a whole.
Ineresting concept. Gotta go eat. More on this later?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, the reason why I (and others) think you have some hidden agenda is because your arguments are NEVER straightforward. They're self-contradictory at best. For example, on the one hand you say the system "works!". On the other, you think it can't be trusted with money. That's a little like introducing your nephew as a GREAT guy, hardworking, keeps at it... and then sotto voce adding "Don't loan him money". You're fine with paying income taxes (altho you don't think the gummint can be trusted with money) but NOT OK with paying estate taxes. You think that minimum-wagers should get an increase, but don't seem too concerned that SOME are going to get CUT, and can't spare a moment's thought about the cost to social programs and the deficit. You distrust when people editorialize, but then you do it yourself (And *poof*! The deficit is gone!)
So you're either either a supply sider, a "starve the beast" anti-gummint guy, a Republican hack, or you're really, really, really confused. Prolly a Republican hack.
Quote:No, it's not that the rich "owe" more. And it's not to keep "the system" from collapsing, it's to keep the ECONOMY from collapsing. But the poor can't keep the economy from collapsing BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
Why just the rich? Shouldn't everyone be responsible for keeping the economy from collapsing? The rich already pay a larger percent of their income as income taxes.
No. I stand by my premise that you think the rich owe something extra over their fair share just because they have more money than you, whereas I think they should pay their income tax like everyone else and leave it at that.
Can I give you a little lesson in economics?
The economy works when money flows. Nothing happens if everyone's got their cash tied up in a mattress. But money doesn't diffuse. It behaves in a very strange way: money, like power, concentrates over time.
What happens when the top 0.1% control 90% of the money? Who do they sell to? The abysmally poor? By eliminating most people from consumption, you have just caused the economy to grind to a halt. that's what happened in the many depressions before the Great Depression, and in the Great Depression itself.
Ever since then, people have been aware (except Reagan, Bush, and Bush) that geeting money back into the hands of the majority is the only way to keep the economy going. Business isn't going to do that... it's antithetical to their purpose of maximum profit. So it falls the the government to do what business CAN'T do.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME