What's new
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.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I missed something then...there is a statement by one person that the surplus was from cutting education (there was no timeframe provided for the $1B budget cut or confirmation the cut was enacted) and the the rest of the article says almost all the surplus is from extra taxes due to the improvement in the economy.

So the article says there were three theories for how the $1B came to be...the Gov says it was his policies (which appears to be false); the one commenter says it was cuts in education (that can't be the case if one agrees with the writer it was all taxes) and the the increased revenue theory (which seems to make sense). 66% misinformation and 33% truth...sounds about right for politics.

I agree...there is some fuzzy info on where it came from. Here's an article that addresses the make up of the budget in question (source is CBS, only one I could fine):

Democrats assailed the budget as an attack on middle class values since it cuts funding for public schools by $800 million, reduces funding to the UW system by $250 million and cuts tax credits for poor people.

It also reduces the amount schools can collect from property taxes and other revenue combined, which translates into another education cut of about $800 million. While schools are seeing deep cuts, Walker's budget extends tax breaks to manufacturers, multistate corporations and investors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wis-gov-signs-budget-cutting-education-185b/
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Scott Walker's policies notwithstanding, is anybody else amused by how quick the "suck-up wind" has shifted from New Jersey to Wisconsin in recent days as the GOP Establishment desparately looks for an alternative to the lunatic caucus for their nominee in 2016. While I'm not the guy's biggest fan, you knucks' do realize that Christie hasn't actually been linked directly to anything yet, right?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I agree...there is some fuzzy info on where it came from. Here's an article that addresses the make up of the budget in question (source is CBS, only one I could fine):

Democrats assailed the budget as an attack on middle class values since it cuts funding for public schools by $800 million, reduces funding to the UW system by $250 million and cuts tax credits for poor people.

It also reduces the amount schools can collect from property taxes and other revenue combined, which translates into another education cut of about $800 million. While schools are seeing deep cuts, Walker's budget extends tax breaks to manufacturers, multistate corporations and investors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wis-gov-signs-budget-cutting-education-185b/

What type of cuts? If they're cutting administrators - fine. If they're cutting contributions related to (declining) union membership, OK. We keep tossing money into education and are the (our) kids better educated than we were, or our parents? My county increased it's per pupil spending by 50% over 8 years with no appreciable increase in student test scores. Was it money well spent?? Unlike NJ, MD does not let the local citizenry directly vote on the annual school budget. Wish we could.

I would love to know the overhead rate on public education -- for every $ that is spent in the classroom, how many more $$ are being spent on support of the classroom? Some of it is obviously necessary - utilities, maintenance, fuel, textbooks and such. But how many "curriculum specialists" do you need? How many vice principals? It's a debate that needs to happen in every school board in the country.

Anyway, off my soapbox and debating whether or not to watch the SOTU. I hope there's a hockey game on somewhere.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I agree...there is some fuzzy info on where it came from. Here's an article that addresses the make up of the budget in question (source is CBS, only one I could fine):

Democrats assailed the budget as an attack on middle class values since it cuts funding for public schools by $800 million, reduces funding to the UW system by $250 million and cuts tax credits for poor people.

It also reduces the amount schools can collect from property taxes and other revenue combined, which translates into another education cut of about $800 million. While schools are seeing deep cuts, Walker's budget extends tax breaks to manufacturers, multistate corporations and investors.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wis-gov-signs-budget-cutting-education-185b/

Checking additional articles, the timing of rushing this budget through, prior to recall elections etc. was a concern. And it should have been. Walker's comments at the time was that he ran on the platform of this budget and nobody should be shocked. Of course, nobody goes into this kind of detail in campaign speeches so the issue isn't that he didn't foreshadow changes but how he specifically implements his broader plan.

In terms of education; Wisconsin has 426 public school districts with an average of 5.8 schools per district and 348 students per school. The Governor's cuts were a reduction in the $10,500 spent per public school student per year and the requirement was that property taxes not be increased. So, the response was "we'll have to cut education programs for students". $10,500 is roughly the national average but the number of districts, schools per district and students per school seem low to an outsider.

I'm not saying Walker is right or wrong, and who knows the best way to curtail school expenses, but I wish he would have said no sports, music or education programs could be cut to meet the reduction or $500 per student or that he required the consolidation of some districts, reducing overhead vs. taking the $500 out of each student's schooling.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, one of the things brought up by the dictator was "MyRA". Essentially, it's something that already exists and is in attempt to re-brand it. Of course, these "MyRA" plans will probably only invest in government bonds. If these people wanted IRA investments, they would have already sought it out.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

So, one of the things brought up by the dictator was "MyRA". Essentially, it's something that already exists and is in attempt to re-brand it. Of course, these "MyRA" plans will probably only invest in government bonds. If these people wanted IRA investments, they would have already sought it out.

Specifically, they'll look like Roth IRAs, based upon what was said last night. And they're going to get some very low return rates, given bond prices right now. They're essentially going to look like a money market savings account with tax shelter benefits.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Specifically, they'll look like Roth IRAs, based upon what was said last night. And they're going to get some very low return rates, given bond prices right now. They're essentially going to look like a money market savings account with tax shelter benefits.



Right, and they will probably violate laws imposed on private business, such as making it illegal for an employer to offer only an investment in the employer's company as part of a company-sponsored retirement plan (post-Enron adjustment); and against all advice to diversify one's retirement plan holdings.

"We won't tax the middle class, we'll merely 'borrow' from them instead." Yeah, right. Inflation is a stealth tax, folks. Here's an IOU, we'll pay you back in freshly-printed money that devalues your purchasing power. That's why coins have milled edges, to keep the government honest. and that's why we are no longer on a gold standard, to allow the government to inflate away its "debts."
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Right, and they will probably violate laws imposed on private business, such as making it illegal for an employer to offer only an investment in the employer's company as part of a company-sponsored retirement plan (post-Enron adjustment); and against all advice to diversify one's retirement plan holdings.

"We won't tax the middle class, we'll merely 'borrow' from them instead." Yeah, right. Inflation is a stealth tax, folks. Here's an IOU, we'll pay you back in freshly-printed money that devalues your purchasing power. That's why coins have milled edges, to keep the government honest. and that's why we are no longer on a gold standard, to allow the government to inflate away its "debts."

According to one site, 401k plans have been shifted without notice to all government bonds for certain plans. This didn't happen in my case, but it's something worth checking. If anything, a reason to look at your plan is to know what you are investing in; always smart. http://www.silverdoctors.com/it-beg...forcing-employees-401k-funds-into-treasuries/

Wasn't that law for investments in an employer's company fairly recent, though? Especially when you look at company matches on a 401k; some companies still require ESOP there.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I knew this sentiment was fairly common, but frankly I was surprised to see how widespread it is.

Last year's most remarkable polling number from Gallup said in December that 72% of Americans regard big government as the greatest threat to the U.S.

That's nearly 3 out of 4. I guess you really DO have to be Candide not to be concerned.

that's your cue, Candide....pop in now to "reassure" us how it's all a mirage and everything truly is wonderful.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I knew this sentiment was fairly common, but frankly I was surprised to see how widespread it is.



That's nearly 3 out of 4. I guess you really DO have to be Candide not to be concerned.

that's your cue, Candide....pop in now to "reassure" us how it's all a mirage and everything truly is wonderful.

Hey I like it Fishy. In fact, I'm hoping the GOP uses this Gallup poll to push for the repeal of Social Security and Medicare! Are you with me? :D
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0



Poor little fishy, you do realize when I quoted your message everything pops up, right, including your lame attempt at humor.

But, kindly tell us how your preferred candidate got crushed in the last Presidential election given? You do remember that, right? :D Because if your theory was correct in reality, shouldn't be be discussing President Romney right now. :eek:
 
I knew this sentiment was fairly common, but frankly I was surprised to see how widespread it is.



That's nearly 3 out of 4. I guess you really DO have to be Candide not to be concerned.

that's your cue, Candide....pop in now to "reassure" us how it's all a mirage and everything truly is wonderful.

There's a big difference between big government that wants to spy on you, steal your guns, start unnecessary wars, and come between your wife's hoohah and her doctor, and big government that provides social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits.

In other words, I dont see why this is in the economic thread rather than general politics one. (Well, I understand why the Fark Independent (tm) posted it here, but his reasoning is as partisan as ever)
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There's a big difference between big government that wants to spy on you, steal your guns, start unnecessary wars, and come between your wife's hoohah and her doctor, and big government that provides social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits.

In other words, I dont see why this is in the economic thread rather than general politics one. (Well, I understand why the Fark Independent (tm) posted it here, but his reasoning is as partisan as ever)

I always like calling out libertarians when they post inane stuff like this. Being against "big gubmint darnit" is an easy question in theory. The problem for the hasn't-been-laid-since-the-Reagan-administration crowd is that these same people like their own programs. Hence that being outvoted in 5 out of the last 6 Presidential elections...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There's a big difference between big government that wants to spy on you, steal your guns, start unnecessary wars, and come between your wife's hoohah and her doctor, and big government that provides social security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits.

In other words, I dont see why this is in the economic thread rather than general politics one. (Well, I understand why the Fark Independent (tm) posted it here, but his reasoning is as partisan as ever)

No there isn't. Sucker them in with one, and slap them with the other.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Res Ipsa Loquitor


More than one in six men ages 25 to 54, prime working years, don't have jobs—a total of 10.4 million. Some are looking for jobs; many aren't. Some had jobs that went overseas or were lost to technology. Some refuse to uproot for work because they are tied down by family needs or tethered to homes worth less than the mortgage. Some rely on government benefits. Others depend on working spouses.

Having so many men out of work is partly a symptom of a U.S. economy slow to recover from the worst recession in 75 years. It is also a chronic condition that shows how technology and globalization are transforming jobs faster than many workers can adapt, economists say.

The trend has been building for decades, according to government data. In the early 1970s, just 6% of American men ages 25 to 54 were without jobs. By late 2007, it was 13%. In 2009, during the worst of the recession, nearly 20% didn't have jobs.

Although the economy is improving and the unemployment rate is falling, 17% of working-age men weren't working in December. More than two-thirds said they weren't looking for work, so the government doesn't label them unemployed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top