Unemployment rate hits 5-month high

POSTED BY: FellowTraveler
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2006 21:39
VIEWED: 7321
PAGE 7 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, August 6, 2006 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
This is so cool. As long as I use the name ..., I can say anything I want and he won't answer.

This will require some thought.

Or I might do as I've been doing with SignyM's posts; just edit out the insults, and respond to the real discussion, if any.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Sunday, August 6, 2006 8:22 PM

Quote:
just edit out the insults, and respond to the real discussion, if any

Slick
I doubt the 50,000 or so families affected each year by estate taxes can provide more political clout that the two million plus folks who'd profit from the increase in the minimum wage.

Rue
$ 1 = 1 vote

Rue
And the people who annually make $5M US or more? I can see they really NEEEED that tax break SOOOOooo badly. They're doing just awful compared to everyone else.

Rue
It's not about punishing the rich. It's about protecting the next generations from Bush's economic follies.

-------------------------------------------------
No insults. No reply either. No response to wealth = political clout, to why do rich people NEED to get even richer, or to if/ why are Bush's econoiic policies misguided.

--------------------------------------------------

So it's true. I really do get to make any claims I want and Slick won't reply.

--------------------------------------------------

According to Slick, there's no harm in in giving the super-rich (see 'football field') a tax break. That, despite the OMB's analysis that half the deficit comes from the existing tax break. And since, according to him, there's no harm, then why NOT couple it to the minimum wage? He portrays it as a win-win.

But that's not true. The tax break does reduce Federal income, driving the budget into deficit. By going into deficit, the government has to borrow. That has the immediate effect of raising interest rates for everyone, denying people the opportunity to buy a house, further their education, borrow for medical expenses, or start a business. China, which owns a large part of US debt, is actively leveraging it politically. Beyond immediate effect, that cost will be carried by the next generation(s), to the same effect.

A robust economy which WASN'T supposed to happen under Clinton - did. That despite the fact that the highest tax increase ever was passed early under his administration. And despite the fact that he raised the minimum wage by 25%. The stock market steadily climbed. http://www.itulip.com/realdow.htm Unemployment steadily dropped. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt The government deficit turned around and was in a surplus.

Bush decided a healthy economy wasn't good enough. IMMEDIATELY after appointment, he started pushing for tax-breaks. The faltering economy he created only gave him the 'trickle-down' excuse to do what he wanted to do from the start. (Remember, he STARTED with the tax-break policy.)

And under Bush, the trickle-down which is supposed to happen, hasn't. The stock market crashed after Bush's inaguration (not after 9/11, which was yet another one of Bush's lies). The investment community, which was stable and happy under Clinton didn't have the same confidence in Bush. It has struggled to regain lost ground since then. (That despite the fact that profits in certain sectors are at an all time high.) Since Bush, it has gone down, gone up, gone down, and up, then down, many, many times. And is now worse than flat due to inflation. http://www.itulip.com/realdow.htm Unemployment shot up, briefly improved, but is now headed the wrong way, again. More people are uninsured. Real wages have gone down. Inflation is up, interest rates are up. Japan and China own the US several times over. These are not the characteristics of a healthy economy.

Slick argues that tax breaks don't hurt, they help. Such is not the case.

GEEZER

Sunday, August 6, 2006 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
$ 1 = 1 vote

Then Bill Gates runs the country? But we talked about campaign finance reform in another thread, and were pretty much in agreement. That's the place to fix the problems with money buying legislators.

Quote:
And the people who annually make $5M US or more? I can see they really (need) that tax break ... badly.

Actually, the Estate Tax break applies to estates valued at between $1M and $5M, not annual earnings.

Quote:
It's not about punishing the rich. It's about protecting the next generations from Bush's economic (policies).

For me, it's about having blown the chance to raise the minimum wage, for the first time in ten years. Based on Soupcatcher's analysis of estate tax reductions during the Bush II administration, the estate tax stuff will probably get through anyway. I see no reason that the Minimum Wage shouldn't ride its coattails. At least get some benefit for the not-so-rich while the rich are getting theirs.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, August 7, 2006 3:51 AM

Geezer, if the Republicans thought they could get the inheritance tax through on an up-down vote, they prolly would. But they're politically vulnerable right now, and the outcry would be enormous. The best they can hope for is to gain some political leverage for the upcoming elections. So the linkage between minimum wage and tax breaks for the rich is just politics- dishonest politics- at its worst.

So you pose that it would be good for the Dems to vote for an increase in minimum wage. Do you mean at any cost? How about at the cost of starting global nuclear war? Nah... you'd prolly figure THAT cost is too high. Maybe the Dems should trade off the whole "equal rights" concept? Or giving up on abortion rights? How about increasing the deficit by $200 billion? Is THOSE costs too high? Yeah, maybe too high.

So, I assume that you don't mean at any cost, that there is some point at which you would tell the Dems "Nah it ain't worth it, you're getting humped in this deal." What would that point be?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

GEEZER

Monday, August 7, 2006 12:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you pose that it would be good for the Dems to vote for an increase in minimum wage. Do you mean at any cost? So, I assume ... that there is some point at which you would tell the Dems "Nah it ain't worth it..." What would that point be?

The recent bill is about as far as I'd be willing to go.

I'm not too sure that the Dems aren't cutting their own throats again in the mid-terms, with stuff like this Lieberman-Lamont primary. If we get the same thing in other states, with the Dem incumbents losing the primary and vowing to run as Independents, the liberal vote could split, handing the Repubs Congress once again. Then it's at least two more years until Minimum wage has a chance as a stand-alone.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Monday, August 7, 2006 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, the Estate Tax break applies to estates valued at between $1M and $5M, not annual earnings.

Its not hard to get a middle class estate to the million mark. Take a paid for house@$150-$200k add in other property and life insurence and even lower middle classers like my parents can make it.

H

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, August 7, 2006 2:32 PM

Let's go with estates of 1 million or more for the sake of argument, and lets use your parents as an example.

How much money do you think you deserve to inherit? Sounds like the infrastructure your parents were able to provide you got you on your own two feet and you were able to make something of yourself, which is the way things should work.

There will still be over half of that money to go to you and your siblings --- an advantage that most people will not have.

Taking a portion of that and putting it into programs that help those that don't have any inheritance or family structure to speak of, so that they can get on their own two feet couldn't be a bad thing now, could it?

In a meritocracy, which is what we've always been taught our country is about, an estate tax is neccessary - consolidation of inherited and passed down wealth and land is no different from the system we thought we were bucking in England - why would we want to support a class of rich people that don't have to work for their money? Everybody should contribute, and its not like they, or even upper class families have not had a better shot at the American dream than the American majority.

HERO

Monday, August 7, 2006 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
How much money do you think you deserve to inherit?

Since they already taxed the property, the earnings, and everything else. I think that money has been taxed enough. So I deserve every cent...bad enough I have to share with my brother and sister.

I promise to use the money wisely. Paying off my student loans, for example, would free up a portion of my income for investment and spending (both taxable pursuits) rather then 20 more years of debt service (which is deductable). This is far more valuable to the country then the marginal benefit of yet another tax on a person who no longer has future tax potential (because they are dead).

How about a cow? You tax the feed, tax the cow, tax the land the cow's on, tax the income the cow produces, then the farmer dies and you tax it all again before allowing any use to be made. It is far better to, as the farmer lies dying, slaughter the cow and serve it at a the wake. That provides a limited immediate benefit of the farmer's labor to those surviving him. Would it not be better to create a system that rewards the farmer and society by passing on the cow and its income and allowing the state to continue its taxation of the long term benefits?

H

SIGNYM

Monday, August 7, 2006 4:43 PM

Trying to clear up some misinformation about estate tax (because we already looked into that due to our daughter's condition):

The GOP talking point is that MANY people will be affected by the estate tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. The estate tax applies to inheritance of over two million- not one million. In addition, it's possible for a spouse to use their partner's gift tax exclusion. Obviously, this means that lower-middle-class families are not affected by the estate tax at all. In fact, by the IRS' estimation, less than 2% of all households will be affected by estate tax.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Planyourestate/
P52707.asp

So Hero, you, your parents, and your brother and sister can rest easy.

But the loss of Federal revenues is not $6 billion, as Geezer posted. It's as high as $61 billion. (I'm sure that was a mere mistake on Geezer's part. )

Quote:
Once fully in effect, the measure would cost an estimated $61 billion a year in lost revenue.

www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/05/t
ax_cuts_shameful_sham/
And

Quote:
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.

www.cbpp.org/6-5-06tax.htm
Also www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-30-irs-ourview_x.htm

And since the bill would DECREASE minimum wage for tipped employees, which could be 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. BTW- that bak-evelope scribbling itself is poor estimate because it ASSUMES that everyone who works at minumum wage (a) works full time and (b) is subject to the Federal minimum wage. A closer estimate would be half or less, since more than half of minimum-wagers are part-time or exempt.

Given all that, it's entirely possible that there would be almost NO overall net wage increase.

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?

BTW- I doubt it.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

GEEZER

Monday, August 7, 2006 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
How much money do you think you deserve to inherit?

Lets ask this same question another way.

How much of the inheritance you worked all your life to provide your children do you think the Government deserves to get?

Consider that:

1)If you're in the income bracket to pay Estate Tax, that money has already been taxed when you earned it, at rates higher than 95% of the population pays.

2) You know that the money the Government gets isn't likely to go to "...help those that don't have any inheritance or family structure to speak of, so that they can get on their own two feet...", but instead will end up paying for some porkbarrel project.

If you want some of your wealth to help the less fortunate, set up a foundation, like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Why let the government decide how to spend your money? Do you think they'd do a good job?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE