Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You beat me to it unofan. Who -ever- implied that raising taxes boosts the economy? Rather what people on the left tend to argue is that there's a certain level of funding that's needed, largely via taxes, to operate the government sufficiently. The idea that citizens will just happily accept massive cuts to their health care spending, especially in their senior years, is ludicrous. The trick to cutting spending isn't to cut needed programs, its to make them run better. Changes to entitlements that make the work better or maintain service levels at lower cost should be focused on like a laser beam. Ridiculous neo-conartist circle jerk plans like Ryan's budget need to be laughed out of the discussion, which the public just did in the last election.

Once again, the left's programs are perfect and absolutely can't be touched. Typical.

 

[Rover]

Once again, the left's programs are perfect and absolutely can't be touched. Typical.

Not as typical as yet another strawman argument out of you, but I'll play along.

Social Security = made up crisis. Program is funded for another 30 years. Simply easing benefit promises solves the problem. Every year I get a letter saying how much I'll get at projected retirement age, but at present the fund will only be able to pay out 75% of that. I've got an idea, just make my projected payout to be the 75% amount and call it a day.

Medicare = No cuts to services. That doesn't mean you can't cut the expense of providing those services, which can be done in variety of painless ways to the beneficiary (bargaining for prescription drugs, tort reform, fraud crackdown, better patient management, etc). However, your approach is like cutting a tree down because it has a broken branch.

Medicaid = If its true that this program is costing more per person than Medicare, why that is needs an in depth review. That doesn't mean slash the program however. It means figure out why the costs are higher.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Not as typical as yet another strawman argument out of you, but I'll play along.

Social Security = made up crisis. Program is funded for another 30 years. Simply easing benefit promises solves the problem. Every year I get a letter saying how much I'll get at projected retirement age, but at present the fund will only be able to pay out 75% of that. I've got an idea, just make my projected payout to be the 75% amount and call it a day.

Medicare = No cuts to services. That doesn't mean you can't cut the expense of providing those services, which can be done in variety of painless ways to the beneficiary (bargaining for prescription drugs, tort reform, fraud crackdown, better patient management, etc). However, your approach is like cutting a tree down because it has a broken branch.

Medicaid = If its true that this program is costing more per person than Medicare, why that is needs an in depth review. That doesn't mean slash the program however. It means figure out why the costs are higher.

Not addressing the PPACA and associated regulation? What a shocker!

 

[Rover]

Not addressing the PPACA and associated regulation? What a shocker!

As the PPACA is designed to save money I'm not sure what your gripe is. However, since the voters and the SCOTUS have already passed judgement on it, that leaves you with two choices. 1) Suffer, or 2) Like it. Your choice Flaggy.

Regarding regulation, after the great recession can we finally put to bed the idea that no regulation is the way to go? I mean, didn't that cause a few problems during the financial crisis? 30 years of deregulation leads to worst crisis in 80 years....and the conservative solution is even MORE deregulation? Yeah...

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

As the PPACA is designed to save money

right and we know that all government programs work exactly as "designed" eh?

I can guarantee you based on the pricing mandated by the law's text that it will fail in its objectives. I'd bet everything I own on that. In fact, I'd borrow more money to bet the borrowed money as well. You won't dare take that bet, were anything substantive truly on the line for you personally. you'll find a way to bluster and bully and distract and change the subject instead, but there's no way in real life you'd put your own money on the line, whereas I would if I could find a reliable neutral third party to hold the funds.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

For all those who think that tax rates that are "too progressive" don't matter, the Kennedy tax cuts are perhaps the best example we can find that lower rates, economic growth, and expanded government revenues are frequently correlated. Those who fail to remember history and context might mention that we once had a top rate of 96%, except that was during WWII and applied only to income above $1 million, and it was an emergency measure so that people who worked in munitions manufacturing and manufacture of tanks and guns didn't get windfall profits due to the war. that would be equivalent to having a special rate for income above $25 million today.

It's amusing that I make exactly the opposite argument with people who want to abolish the estate tax. I do believe you can have "too much" concentration of wealth and that the estate tax is a good thing based on its economics if it were to be administered in a more sensible manner (most of the proceeds of the estate tax "should" be paid to municipalities, the Feds would get a 20% cut or so for providing national defense and for acting as administrators and collectors with the rest dispersed across the country). No one can accumulate wealth without private property rights, police and fire protection, a court system, etc.

Of course, historically, the estate tax has been around 50% since its inception. Weird to me that everyone seems tacitly to agree that an estate tax rate above 50% is confiscatory and unfair, but they are quite content with income tax rates that are much higher. When government gets more than half of a person's earnings (unless like in WWII the earnings came from government expenditure to begin with!), there is something wrong on a gut level.

or to quote Chris Rock, "'Rich' is Shaquille O'Neill; 'wealth' is the person who issues his paycheck."

 

[Rover]

right and we know that all government programs work exactly as "designed" eh?

I can guarantee you based on the pricing mandated by the law's text that it will fail in its objectives. I'd bet everything I own on that. In fact, I'd borrow more money to bet the borrowed money as well. You won't dare take that bet, were anything substantive truly on the line for you personally. you'll find a way to bluster and bully and distract and change the subject instead, but there's no way in real life you'd put your own money on the line, whereas I would if I could find a reliable neutral third party to hold the funds.

Zzzzz...Fishy I most likely can buy and sell you 6 days a week and twice on Sunday, so I'm really not worried about collecting or paying money. However, even for 5 bucks your "bet" is worthless because you'll never admit you were wrong. You're the same person who thinks the Roberts decision, which as most people know, upheld the PPACA, was in fact a decision to overturn it. And I'm supposed to make a wager with you? Ooookaaayyyy...

But, to answer the deeper question, I have no idea if the law will achieve 100%, 90% or some other % of its objectives. What its goal for success is to leave the situation better than it found it. On that score, I have little doubt.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Zzzzz...Fishy I most likely can buy and sell you 6 days a week and twice on Sunday, so I'm really not worried about collecting or paying money. However, even for 5 bucks your "bet" is worthless because you'll never admit you were wrong. You're the same person who thinks the Roberts decision, which as most people know, upheld the PPACA, was in fact a decision to overturn it. And I'm supposed to make a wager with you? Ooookaaayyyy...

But, to answer the deeper question, I have no idea if the law will achieve 100%, 90% or some other % of its objectives. What its goal for success is to leave the situation better than it found it. On that score, I have little doubt.

No one with a brain would take the bet on the last paragraph. One man's trash is another man's treasure, as the old saying goes. There are some who understand the PPACA will actually help them. Unfortunately for you, those some are not the people you expect. It's actually the insurance companies, such as AARP. I'm not sure if it was you or uno that had this whole gripe about how we shouldn't be tying employment to insurance. Guess what? Your PPACA does exactly that! This is why many full-time people are being moved to part-time.

Since the inception of the PPACA, I have been of firm belief that health will eventually price out to a point where everyone is on ER status, and there is rationing. As we all know, there's a tax amount for, let's call it, abusing the Hippocratic Oath (i.e. you don't get insurance and see the family doctor, you instead go to the emergency room or some form of public health clinic). Eventually, the market will dictate that the price to purchase insurance will be higher than the tax. Once that threshold is broken, people will understand that it is better to pay the tax and not visit the family doctor, or decide to take their chances on paying the big amount and visiting the family doctor. However, the family doctors will slowly go out of business, whether it is due to lack of customers from what I previously described, or the overhead costs push the final cost so high that they can't afford to stay in business (although an indirect cause of what was previously mentioned). The only group that that ends up better for, then, is the government, because those under poverty die out from waiting. Maybe that's the whole goal, I don't know...

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Raising tax rates will create just one more hurdle in the way of getting real GDP growth going again.

I'm a fiscal conservative, but I'd be a bit careful with this. Youre assuming that private spending will flex up to exceed sure firel govt spending. This is not a foregone conclusion...and in fact there are times over the last 5 years where private spending appetite was a far cry from govt spending.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm a fiscal conservative, but I'd be a bit careful with this. Youre assuming that private spending will flex up to exceed sure firel govt spending. This is not a foregone conclusion...and in fact there are times over the last 5 years where private spending appetite was a far cry from govt spending.

I'm not arguing for a tax cut at the moment. I'd just be wary of any attempt to raise taxes. To call the current GDP growth modest, is to perhaps give it too much credit. I'd consider the current economic condition tenuous. We've started to see some good numbers in specific sectors, but GDP growth continues to be very lackluster. When GDP growth was reported last year of around 1.5-2.0%, but the combined levels of gov't for the country averaged 5%, and all combined levels make up about 40% of the economy, that tells me the GDP growth in the private sector was simply nonexistent. It was flat - at best.

I firmly believe the current Fed Funds rate of 0% it is hurting the country. With loans getting such abhorrently low rates from a lender's perspective, why would banks or investors lend money? How do we expect to create capital growth without incentive? Really, if we want to get this economy going again we need to start slowly raising that target rate and see where that takes us. In truth, this is where I'd see one of the biggest hurdles in the economy rests right now. The stock market's doing all right, but that has more to do with companies shedding expenses with relatively flat revenue to create greater profits. These are not the methods for stock price increases you would see in a healthy economy.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm not arguing for a tax cut at the moment. I'd just be wary of any attempt to raise taxes. To call the current GDP growth modest, is to perhaps give it too much credit. I'd consider the current economic condition tenuous. We've started to see some good numbers in specific sectors, but GDP growth continues to be very lackluster. When GDP growth was reported last year of around 1.5-2.0%, but the combined levels of gov't for the country averaged 5%, and all combined levels make up about 40% of the economy, that tells me the GDP growth in the private sector was simply nonexistent. It was flat - at best.

It will be a problem for the economy whether its an increase in tax...or a decrease in govt services. There will be less money entering the economy in either case...as it disappears into the gaping hole called 'debt'.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It will be a problem for the economy whether its an increase in tax...or a decrease in govt services. There will be less money entering the economy in either case...as it disappears into the gaping hole called 'debt'.

I would argue that the government has consumed so much of the lend-able capital out there that it's created a substitution effect in the economy against the private sector lending and borrowing (government crowding out private borrowing). Should the government borrow less money, there's unused capital available in the capital markets. Should interest rates be high enough to entice lender, and not so high as to discourage borrowers, you'll find a goodly sum of that capital making its way into the private sector. I would expect to see an initial drop in GDP, but a responsible government would have to look to the long-term effects. Those effects would be for a growing private sector economy, the true catalyst for growing the entire economy.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I would argue that the government has consumed so much of the lend-able capital out there that it's created a substitution effect in the economy against the private sector lending and borrowing (government crowding out private borrowing). Should the government borrow less money, there's unused capital available in the capital markets. Should interest rates be high enough to entice lender, and not so high as to discourage borrowers, you'll find a goodly sum of that capital making its way into the private sector. I would expect to see an initial drop in GDP, but a responsible government would have to look to the long-term effects. Those effects would be for a growing private sector economy, the true catalyst for growing the entire economy.

+++!

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

You're the same person who thinks the Roberts decision, which as most people know, upheld the PPACA, was in fact a decision to overturn it.

Ah, i see your reading comprehension skills are sorely sub-par, perhaps that is why you make so little sense.


Roberts overturned the mandate. The mandate was clearly and unequivably found to be unconstitutional. It that clear enough for you?

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Every day individuals do not do an infinite number of things. In some cases they decide not to do something; in others they simply fail to do it. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him.

The mandate is out. No mandate. Is that clear?


Subsequently, he then allowed PPACA to stand by in a sense "re-writing" it, by re-casting the "penalty" as a tax, so that the law would remain in effect under Congress' taxing power instead.

The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.

So, even without the mandate, the law can alternately be viewed as a tax instead and so be allowed to stand anyway. Is that clear as well?


In Roberts' explicit language, there is no "mandate" there is instead a "choice": people can either choose to pay a tax or choose to buy insurance.

He then noted explicitly that since the tax is so much lower than insurance premiums, the law probably wouldn't work:

The guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms do not, however, address the issue of healthy individuals who choose not to purchase insurance to cover potential healthcare needs. In fact, the reforms sharply exacerbate that problem, by providing an incentive for individuals to delay purchasing health insurance until they become sick, relying on the promise of guaranteed and affordable coverage. The reforms also threaten to impose massive new costs on insurers, who are required to accept unhealthy individuals but prohibited from charging them rates necessary to pay for their coverage. This will lead insurers to significantly increase premiums on everyone.

That is directly from his ruling. You can read it and understand what it says, no? He realizes that it is a terrible law,and while that is really bad news, he will allow it to stand anyway:

We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is ... entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. [emphasis added]

Since you seem to have trouble with your reading comprehension, perhaps I can translate into simpler English: Roberts said it is a terrible law but too bad for you, you voted for this twit, now you have to suffer the consequences, we're not bailing you out this time. You want the law changed, vote differently next time.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Ah, i see your reading comprehension skills are sorely sub-par, perhaps that is why you make so little sense.


Roberts overturned the mandate. The mandate was clearly and unequivably found to be unconstitutional. It that clear enough for you?


The mandate is out. No mandate. Is that clear?


Subsequently, he then allowed PPACA to stand by in a sense "re-writing" it, by re-casting the "penalty" as a tax, so that the law would remain in effect under Congress' taxing power instead.

So, even without the mandate, the law can alternately be viewed as a tax instead and so be allowed to stand anyway. Is that clear as well?


In Roberts' explicit language, there is no "mandate" there is instead a "choice": people can either choose to pay a tax or choose to buy insurance.

He then noted explicitly that since the tax is so much lower than insurance premiums, the law probably wouldn't work:


That is directly from his ruling. You can read it and understand what it says, no? He realizes that it is a terrible law,and while that is really bad news, he will allow it to stand anyway:


Since you seem to have trouble with your reading comprehension, perhaps I can translate into simpler English: Roberts said it is a terrible law but too bad for you, you voted for this twit, now you have to suffer the consequences, we're not bailing you out this time. You want the law changed, vote differently next time.

I see your reading comprehension skills are sub-par. Rover said absolutely nothing about a mandate. He only said that the law itself stands. I know you're never going to read this, but IDGTS. You don't get to put words into people's mouths.

 

[Rover]

Ah, i see your reading comprehension skills are sorely sub-par, perhaps that is why you make so little sense.


Roberts overturned the mandate. The mandate was clearly and unequivably found to be unconstitutional. It that clear enough for you?


The mandate is out. No mandate. Is that clear?


Subsequently, he then allowed PPACA to stand by in a sense "re-writing" it, by re-casting the "penalty" as a tax, so that the law would remain in effect under Congress' taxing power instead.

So, even without the mandate, the law can alternately be viewed as a tax instead and so be allowed to stand anyway. Is that clear as well?


In Roberts' explicit language, there is no "mandate" there is instead a "choice": people can either choose to pay a tax or choose to buy insurance.

He then noted explicitly that since the tax is so much lower than insurance premiums, the law probably wouldn't work:


That is directly from his ruling. You can read it and understand what it says, no? He realizes that it is a terrible law,and while that is really bad news, he will allow it to stand anyway:


Since you seem to have trouble with your reading comprehension, perhaps I can translate into simpler English: Roberts said it is a terrible law but too bad for you, you voted for this twit, now you have to suffer the consequences, we're not bailing you out this time. You want the law changed, vote differently next time.

Fishy I hate to keep exposing you as an idiot because it gets boring after the umpteenth time. However, Roberts didn't rule the mandate unconstitional. I want you to read that again. He said it wasn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It WAS constitutional under the taxing clause. THE MANDATE IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Tell me Fishy, in your mind, did Romney really win the election after all.

As far as his personal opinion, who cares? Once again I'll ask a question you refuse to answer. If employers were all going to dump their employees on the govt system because its cheaper, why hasn't this already happened in Massachusetts? I await your explanation...

 

[Rover]

I would argue that the government has consumed so much of the lend-able capital out there that it's created a substitution effect in the economy against the private sector lending and borrowing (government crowding out private borrowing). Should the government borrow less money, there's unused capital available in the capital markets. Should interest rates be high enough to entice lender, and not so high as to discourage borrowers, you'll find a goodly sum of that capital making its way into the private sector. I would expect to see an initial drop in GDP, but a responsible government would have to look to the long-term effects. Those effects would be for a growing private sector economy, the true catalyst for growing the entire economy.

I'm sorry but this is textbook theory. Lenders problem is the credit worthiness of borrowers. If you can borrow money at 0% (from the fed or paying your depositors) and turn around and lend it at prime + something or write a mortgage, you're lending at 4-5%. That means while the spreads aren't out of the park you can make money. Refinance companies are dying for clients for example. The problem after the recent debacle its not as easy to find qualified people to lend to.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Fishy I hate to keep exposing you as an idiot because it gets boring after the umpteenth time. However, Roberts didn't rule the mandate unconstitional. I want you to read that again. He said it wasn't constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It WAS constitutional under the taxing clause. THE MANDATE IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Tell me Fishy, in your mind, did Romney really win the election after all.

As far as his personal opinion, who cares? Once again I'll ask a question you refuse to answer. If employers were all going to dump their employees on the govt system because its cheaper, why hasn't this already happened in Massachusetts? I await your explanation...

Did you ever possibly think that those whom Fishy is trying to protect live in New Hampshire? To avoid the Massachusetts tax, all you have to do is cross the state line. Also, you seem to be under an exacerbated presumption that everyone is going to dump coverage. There are some that will be able to take the higher costs, sure, but there are others that won't, and they have already adjusted for their predicament, such as pushing full-time jobs down to part-time as a loophole. As Roberts did mention in his ruling, though, given the tax being so low compared to health costs, and well as the insurance provider mandate to accept customers regardless of previous health situations (although there's nothing stopping them from pricing them out similar to how auto insurance works), the option could very well prove to be more beneficial. Not to mention, what are the levies or subsidies on the $200k/$250k obsession? Are those people even going to be paying it?

One thing I've learned about libtards: Their ideas and concepts may be utopian, but their execution sucks.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I guess I should have quoted much less of Roberts' ruling, and stuck only to the most salient parts....

Therefore, the individual mandate is found to be unconstitional and is hereby struck down. [emphasis added]
...

However, before striking down a law in its entirety, it is the responsibility of the Court first to determine whether the law can be allowed to stand under another Congressional power....

The law is found to be a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm sorry but this is textbook theory. Lenders problem is the credit worthiness of borrowers. If you can borrow money at 0% (from the fed or paying your depositors) and turn around and lend it at prime + something or write a mortgage, you're lending at 4-5%. That means while the spreads aren't out of the park you can make money. Refinance companies are dying for clients for example. The problem after the recent debacle its not as easy to find qualified people to lend to.

As someone who has started investing in personal loans, I will echo this sentiment. However, from my experience, there's more I look at than credit score. How much are you bringing in a month, and what are your expenditures like? How many times in the past couple of years have you been delinquent with payments? What is your revolving debt like? Some people try to base it upon credit inquiries, but that doesn't always tell you much.