What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FreshFish said:
Yowch! Non-teacher positions growing nearly 3 times faster than teachers, AND these "positions" typically pay ridiculous administrator salaries too. Yet what value is being delivered by all these extra administrators??
Click to expand...

You wanted your democrat politicians because they promised to give you more jobs? You got it, including the promise, and everything that goes with it.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

More details emerged yesterday on the corruption / bribery charges against NY State Sen. Malcom Smith. According to the NY Post print edition, he wanted to be on the ballot to run for mayor and was offering bribes to various people to get a slot on the Republican ballot. NY City has a public matching fund of something like 6 to 1 to finance election campaigns, and the story was that he was planning on using those matching funds in a variety of payoff / kickback / bribery / embezzlement schemes. he didn't really care if he won the election; he wanted access to those public matching funds to further his political ambitions whether he won or not.


The most ironic part of the story is the assertion that public matching funds to finance elections somehow reduce corruption! in this case, they were the incentive for corruption instead.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

"Jobless rate", as a term, annoys me when it comes to reporting the unemployment rate. I'm not sure if it's the media trying to distort the term in order to make things seem better, or the media simply not understanding the difference. Unemployment rates is the rate at which people active in the workforce cannot find employment. Jobless rates is the number of people unemployed - which also includes those the disenfranchised who've dropped out of the workforce. Example:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/05/news/economy/march-jobs-report/index.html?source=cnn_bin

"Economists surveyed by CNNMoney were expecting an increase of 190,000 jobs. The unemployment rate slipped to 7.6%, according to a Labor Department report released Friday.

"Experts had expected the jobless rate to remain at 7.7%. But the decline is not good news: It's because nearly 500,000 people dropped out of the labor market."

Reporters use the terms interchangeably, but they're not.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

St. Clown said:
"Jobless rate", as a term, annoys me when it comes to reporting the unemployment rate. I'm not sure if it's the media trying to distort the term in order to make things seem better, or the media simply not understanding the difference. Unemployment rates is the rate at which people active in the workforce cannot find employment. Jobless rates is the number of people unemployed - which also includes those the disenfranchised who've dropped out of the workforce. Example:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/05/news/economy/march-jobs-report/index.html?source=cnn_bin

"Economists surveyed by CNNMoney were expecting an increase of 190,000 jobs. The unemployment rate slipped to 7.6%, according to a Labor Department report released Friday.

"Experts had expected the jobless rate to remain at 7.7%. But the decline is not good news: It's because nearly 500,000 people dropped out of the labor market."

Reporters use the terms interchangeably, but they're not.
Click to expand...

I think the reason they're using "jobless" is to hide those who are still on welfare yet flip burgers. They're still on the benefits list, yet have a job. Not to mention, all of these numbers are masking the number of people that are not in the work force. If you take a look at that number, it's gone nowhere but up.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FlagDUDE08 said:
I think the reason they're using "jobless" is to hide those who are still on welfare yet flip burgers. They're still on the benefits list, yet have a job. Not to mention, all of these numbers are masking the number of people that are not in the work force. If you take a look at that number, it's gone nowhere but up.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that our workforce is at a very much lower percentage... still in the local minimum. Malfesance and blame ignores one key thing... our ignoring and harming of the one process that keeps corrupt scumbags in check... the free market's allowance of a smarter competitor to pants the rest.

Fact of the matter is we keep our gov't worshipping at the feet of a great many of sacred cows.

I saw an interesting thing pointed out... that, intrinsically, Bloomberg as mayor has a control (albeit limited to a certain extent) of a much larger pile of cash that is in his considerable personal fortune. Gov't can play a large impact in things

----

America needs one thing right now... a political class that isn't looking for ways to get in the way to obfuscate... and worse, people who aren't looking to exact some amount of economic revenge based upon 100+ year old discredited ideology. Mainly the idea that lurking around every corner is a person with big pockets who wish to subvert polite society for their own personal enrichment
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The Social Security disability program is a real serious problem.

Not only is it costing a lot of money, it is keeping people unemployed who might like to get back to work but can't get the training and education they need to do so.

Instead, these people drop out of the workforce entirely, even if they want to work, and instead they keep collecting checks the rest of us can't really afford to write.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FreshFish said:
The Social Security disability program is a real serious problem.

Not only is it costing a lot of money, it is keeping people unemployed who might like to get back to work but can't get the training and education they need to do so.

Instead, these people drop out of the workforce entirely, even if they want to work, and instead they keep collecting checks the rest of us can't really afford to write.
Click to expand...

Social Security also pays a death benefit of around $1000 a month to the benefit of a surviving child of a deceased parent until the child turns 18. Granted, the private solution that I have been touting would simply pay out the benefit donations given by the deceased. BTW, your link is only for the paid subscribers.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Article says that labor force participation dropped to lowest level since 1979 and a key driver is the number of people who went on disability during the recession and are staying there. (estimated to be 25% of the decline)

Economists say relatively few people will trade their disability checks for paychecks in part because the program doesn't give much incentive to leave.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

For 2012 I will pay more money in income tax than I made in 1996. Go figure.


I was thinking about how the Federal income tax brackets are constructed, and I thought that perhaps a different kind of "indexing" might make a real lot of sense.

Instead of defining the brackets by hard numbers the way we do now, why not define the brackets in terms of where they lie in terms of how many people (or couples) are making that much?

So right now the cutoff for the top bracket is $388,350 for everyone except married filing separately, where it is half that amount. Why not have the cutoff for the top bracket be at the 99th percentile of income level? Maybe the bracket below that could be at the 95th percentile, the bracket below that at the 20th percentile, the bracket below that at the 50th percentile, the bracket below that at the 80th percentile, whatever.

Then the numbers wouldn't seem so arbitrary, at least.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FreshFish said:
For 2012 I will pay more money in income tax than I made in 1996. Go figure.


I was thinking about how the Federal income tax brackets are constructed, and I thought that perhaps a different kind of "indexing" might make a real lot of sense.

Instead of defining the brackets by hard numbers the way we do now, why not define the brackets in terms of where they lie in terms of how many people (or couples) are making that much?

So right now the cutoff for the top bracket is $388,350 for everyone except married filing separately, where it is half that amount. Why not have the cutoff for the top bracket be at the 99th percentile of income level? Maybe the bracket below that could be at the 95th percentile, the bracket below that at the 20th percentile, the bracket below that at the 50th percentile, the bracket below that at the 80th percentile, whatever.

Then the numbers wouldn't seem so arbitrary, at least.
Click to expand...
That would make for horrible tax planning. Nobody other than CPAs would go for it, and only then they'd go for it because it'd bring them more business.

Right now, despite how people don't like this complicated tax code we have currently, we can at least plan our cash outlays based upon concrete figures. If you make it a percentage based value, then you have no idea what your taxable income will be throughout the year. The marginal tax brackets would be complete guesses because you don't know if the doctor down the street had a stellar year and cleared $400,000 or struggled and only made $75,000. His business woes now directly impact my take home pay? No thanks.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

St. Clown said:
That would make for horrible tax planning. Nobody other than CPAs would go for it, and only then they'd go for it because it'd bring them more business.
Click to expand...

Your objection is based only on methodology. If the brackets were re-set once every ten years in conjunction with the census, and then adjusted each year based on changes in the CPI (as many of them already are now) then we'd have some understanding of where the brackets came from and how they were derived instead of this totally ad hoc nonsense we have now.
 
FreshFish said:
Your objection is based only on methodology. If the brackets were re-set once every ten years in conjunction with the census, and then adjusted each year based on changes in the CPI (as many of them already are now) then we'd have some understanding of where the brackets came from and how they were derived instead of this totally ad hoc nonsense we have now.
Click to expand...

I'll give you this. Of all the complaints about the tax code, I've never heard anyone complain that the origins of the brackets are too arbitrary. That's a new one.

I don't really see why it matters one way or the other, considering every other arbitrary distinction in the tax code. But whatever.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

St. Clown said:
Right now, despite how people don't like this complicated tax code we have currently, we can at least plan our cash outlays based upon concrete figures.
Click to expand...

And the complication is entirely in the realm of what is allowed for deductions and what is defined as income. The brackets themselves are simple. (It doesn't help that a lot of people appear unable to comprehend the concept of marginal tax rates, but that's a separate issue.)
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Craig P. said:
And the complication is entirely in the realm of what is allowed for deductions and what is defined as income. The brackets themselves are simple. (It doesn't help that a lot of people appear unable to comprehend the concept of marginal tax rates, but that's a separate issue.)
Click to expand...

politicians like a complicated tax code with high marginal rates because it is really good for campaign contributions. "even though it looks like we have high marginal rates, friend, just for you we have a special deal by which we can insert a technical clause which shelters your particular slice of income from those high rates."

:mad:

Progressives can be so gullible sometime. They think people actually pay these high rates. Hah. each group gets exempted from them in a different way, which keeps changing every time the tax code is revised.

check this out. The Internal Revenue Code has 9,834 sections.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

joecct said:
There is the cap on earnings from an IRA/401(k) plans of a bit over $200K.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing I don't like, it's 401k / Traditional IRA rules. Not only is the government taking a big roll of the dice on people living until retirement age, but it's also very dangerous for the retiree when it comes to taxes. I would, quite frankly, get rid of the deferral rules, while grandfathering what is already paid in but no more, unless the retiree should decide to pay off a conversion fee to Roth. If you want a retirement account, do it Roth style. The government gets their money right away, and the retiree makes their money through wise investments in earnings. After all, compounding earnings and dividends is how you really make money.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

FreshFish said:
politicians like a complicated tax code with high marginal rates because it is really good for campaign contributions. "even though it looks like we have high marginal rates, friend, just for you we have a special deal by which we can insert a technical clause which shelters your particular slice of income from those high rates."

:mad:

Progressives can be so gullible sometime. They think people actually pay these high rates. Hah. each group gets exempted from them in a different way, which keeps changing every time the tax code is revised.

check this out. The Internal Revenue Code has 9,834 sections.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26
Click to expand...


as an aside, they also exempted political calls from the TCPA rules, so they can solicit those donations and votes with less interference. They essentially shut down telemarketing in the country, except calls that benefit them. I loved the "these calls disrupt the american family's ability to eat dinner together" cries during the run up to the law. BUT, we can disrupt your dinner...not that the average family eats dinner together anyway.

So, I hate calls to the house more than the next 10 people but I do 'admire' the complete hypocrisy in which they pursued the solution.
 
Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

unofun said:
But don't call him rightwing, folks.
Click to expand...

Mookie at least figured it out. Most of my criticisms of the "progressives" come from the left, not from the right.

While you might think that anyone who criticizes something so noble as "the progressive" must automatically be from the "right" in this case you would be wrong.

There is a "practical" left and a "naively ideological" left. The latter thinks that it is sufficient merely to mean well (i.e., to have "good intentions"), while the former insists that the only thing that actually matters is whether you do well (i.e., "how do the policies actually affect the lives of real people"?)

I think that in a civil society, the most fortunate have a moral obligation to help those whose lives and efforts helped make that good fortune possible (i.e., while you did build that, you didn't build that on your own). I also notice that progressive government has resulted in more poor people, more unemployment, and more misery in the lives of people it purports to help; while economic growth and opportunity have helped more people out of poverty.

Karl Marx said it best (paraphrase): "Government is run by rich people in order to preserve their privileges. The people who work in government always have their own self-interest first." Applying Marx's insight, we notice that "progressive" programs are designed primarily to give lots of people government jobs, and if the programs actually did work as "intended" then all those people would be out of a job (suppose we actually "won" the "war on poverty" for example. That's a lot of bureaucrats who'd have nothing left to do, no??).

"Anti-poverty" programs depend upon the existence of plenty of poor people. Any government-run "anti-poverty" program perpetuates poverty, it does not address its root causes.

Either you believe in progressive ideals or you believe in progressive government, which is anti-thetical to progressive ideals.

Keep trying to comfort yourself by pretending that I'm "right-wing"; my scathing criticism actually comes from the left.

It is similar to why Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas provide such scathing criticisms of affirmative action: they see very clearly the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and are unstinting in their criticisms: programs that in theory are supposed to help people advance wind up in practice undermining the efforts of the very same people that are supposed to be helped. The results belie the intention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top