-thing but tax cuts.
GOP vows to block all bills until tax bill resolved. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/gop.senate.demands/index.html?hpt=T2)
Quote"Washington (CNN) -- Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
All 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."
I'm sure digging on this new GOP governing style. All about rolling up your sleeves and getting down to some serious ideologically-based obstruction.
Can't wait for 2012!
Me neither!
;)
It will probably swing back a ways.
People are going to realize that the economy has been getting better for quite a while and that the same 'job elimination' policies that have destroyed our manufacturing base are still in place. Look for the "Made in USA" label. And if possible, look for the "Made in Oklahoma" label - even better!!
As long as Congress and the Presidency are held by different parties, I'll be a happy camper! Worst of all worlds is when both held the same.
Two things come to mind. Clinton when the Republicans shut down government and it backfired on them. And wondering if Mr. "I don't get into partisan squabbles" Obama is going to finally make all the making nice work.
I'm one of those Democrats that wanted Hillary because she knows how to play hard ball. I mean where is Stalin when we need him. (Joke) But I've recently thought folks are going to be so sick of Republican acrimony that Obama's constantly extended olive branch strategy might actually pay off. Dumb luck or strategy? If it works it would probably fall under "dumb luck."
Is there anyone else out there that finds the Republican position generally brittle and wondering when the Left will produce a leader who will knock over their house of cards?
The Republicontins are just not able to stay with their alleged principles (can anyone even still spell "balanced budget amendment"). The allure of the money to be had with the sellout of the American people was just too big a temptation.
And the Dummycrats can't get their chaos under control enough to get anything effective done. They can't even collectively understand the concept of a subordinate clause, as in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The allure of the money to be given away with the sellout of the American people was just too big a temptation.
Quote from: Hometown on December 01, 2010, 03:43:47 PM
Two things come to mind. Clinton when the Republicans shut down government and it backfired on them.
They shut it down because he refused to sign the Balanced Budget Bill or the supplemental omnibus they set before him. After two days of shut down he signed the supplemental omnibus. . .and it DID backfire on Republicans.
Clinton brilliantly came out later in a press conference and claimed to have signed a measure that would keep the Federal Government running. The measure, that Bill signed, was the temporary omnibus spending bill also penned by Newt and Rep Bob Livingston H.R.3019.
Newt was a pansy. He should have immediately had a press conference and said "Yeah, we had to shut down the federal government to get you to sign anything Mr. President." Instead he made some under the cuff comment about Clinton ignoring him, and being rude, that made him sound like an ineffective child.
Clinton won in the realm of PR big time, without actually passing a single bill of his own (or of his parties). The supplimental spending resolution kept things going until Clinton signed Rep. John Kasich's Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that he also later took credit for. Clinton was the absolute best at using the word "I". He did however have a problem with the word "is". I suppose because "is" tends to refer to current reality.
No one really took notice that the bill proposed by Clinton and the Democrat party was never considered. It simply faded into obscurity. Bill would sign just about anything at that time and few of his fellow Democrats would make too much stink about it, because all eyes were on his actions with a certain White House intern.
I guess you could say that without Monica Lewinsky we may have never had a balanced budget act. I'm just glad
she didn't blow it. . .wait a minute. . . :o
Quote from: guido911 on December 01, 2010, 05:29:34 PM
Yep.
It's gonna be pretty fun to see what two years of no governance looks like.
Quote from: we vs us on December 01, 2010, 09:30:26 PM
It's gonna be pretty fun to see what two years of no governance looks like.
I'm buying more stock in Marshall's in the meantime. Can you guys start a collection for my eventual trip to re-hab?
Quote from: we vs us on December 01, 2010, 09:30:26 PM
It's gonna be pretty fun to see what two years of no governance looks like.
We are not subjects. We are the self governed. . . or at least that was the intension.
After this tax hike thing is resolved, I invite gridlock.
When there is gridlock, and when Congress is out of session, are the only two times we are actually safe.
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. – Will Rogers
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)
Obama will be ready to rule on day one! - Valerie Jarrett
Quote from: Gaspar on December 02, 2010, 07:36:57 AM
We are not subjects. We are the self governed. . . or at least that was the intension.
After this tax hike thing is resolved, I invite gridlock.
When there is gridlock, and when Congress is out of session, are the only two times we are actually safe.
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. – Will Rogers
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. – Mark Twain (1866)
Obama will be ready to rule on day one! - Valerie Jarrett
I'm borrowing that first quote. I'd never heard it before.
How about this for a tax plan: Another tax cut. Change current law to reduce the rate on the bottom three or four tax brackets by a further 5%. Since you Republicans are so intent on tax cuts, let's make them the most effective tax cuts they can be. Corporations and the wealthy are hoarding cash right now, so giving them more of a break than we give to the people who don't have cash to hoard doesn't make sense.
Note that contrary to the rhetoric of the usual suspects, everyone would get this tax break. A "middle class" tax cut is also a tax cut for rich people. They just get extra when we drop the higher brackets, too.
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 09:34:24 AM
How about this for a tax plan: Another tax cut. Change current law to reduce the rate on the bottom three or four tax brackets by a further 5%. Since you Republicans are so intent on tax cuts, let's make them the most effective tax cuts they can be. Corporations and the wealthy are hoarding cash right now, so giving them more of a break than we give to the people who don't have cash to hoard doesn't make sense.
Note that contrary to the rhetoric of the usual suspects, everyone would get this tax break. A "middle class" tax cut is also a tax cut for rich people. They just get extra when we drop the higher brackets, too.
I'm good with that, only if there are intelligent
Spending Cuts, and a freeze on all new programs.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 02, 2010, 11:06:04 AM
I'm good with that, only if there are intelligent Spending Cuts, and a freeze on all new programs.
Oh, the sound of moving goalposts. Interesting how your tax cuts don't have to be paid for, but mine do.
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 11:55:50 AM
Oh, the sound of moving goalposts. Interesting how your tax cuts don't have to be paid for, but mine do.
I don't know that I've ever heard Gaspar say that the extension of the Bush cuts should not be paired with a cut in spending.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 12:18:08 PM
I don't know that I've ever heard Gaspar say that the extension of the Bush cuts should not be paired with a cut in spending.
He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.
Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to
cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.
Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 12:18:08 PM
I don't know that I've ever heard Gaspar say that the extension of the Bush cuts should not be paired with a cut in spending.
Nope! I expect them to be. In fact. . .I would rather see massive spending cuts than the total extension. I could accept the "Obama Compromise" if it was paired with a complete halt on ALL new spending and cutbacks to existing programs.
I wish someone would propose such an intelligent deal. . .Oh! Wait! What about the OBRPDR (Obama's Blue Ribbon Panel on Deficit Reduction)?
I guess we've already opted to sweep them under the rug. :-X
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 12:47:18 PM
He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.
Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.
Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?
I think we are seeing what unsustainability of an ever-growing government teat looks like. Personally, I'm a fan of austerity. We've got just about everyone but the middle class looking for their pound of flesh or personal service from the government. Corporations and the wealthy seek all sorts of slick accounting advantages for tax avoidance because they provide the jobs and goods which keep the economy moving. They also seek regulatory advantages like that POS food safety bill. On the lower end, the poor expect to not have to work and the government will feed and house them.
Speaking of the food safety bill, when did it become prudent to reward negligence and incompetence with $1.2 bln and a whole new bureaucracy to basically oversee what USDA and FDA are already chartered to do? That wouldn't fly in the private sector. That would be like asking my boss for a raise and a company car after I went AWOL for two weeks on a drinking binge.
We will know in a year or two how austerity works, won't we?
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 12:47:18 PM
He's been calling for spending cuts as a separate issue, unrelated to tax policy.
Either a person wants to do something about the deficit or they don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you're trying to cut the deficit, cutting taxes is exactly the opposite of what one should do. People who are concerned about the deficit want to cut spending, not cut taxes. If you do both, you're not improving the situation.
Personally, as I've been saying for months, if not longer, the deficit doesn't matter a whit at present. As long as the Eurozone is in the smile, we have nothing to worry about on that front. Where the hell else are people going to put their money? In a Euro that may be completely gone in a year or two if they continue down their path of austerity?
Nathan, I'm really starting to think that you have your own personal dialog going with me
in your HEAD!I think my last post on this subject back on the "Tax Cuts Should End" thread was:
QuoteGawd! How loud do you have to say it?
CUT SPENDING!
and CUT TAXES
Hell, I even used 18pt text. I want spending cuts more than Christmas presents. I want them more than tax cuts. I want them more than whirld peas! It's the only way we can slow the damage to our system and keep from slouching towards socialism. I want them. I want them. I want them. I want the power turned off on the floor of the House and Senate. I want them to fly commercial aircraft. I want congress closed for business except for 1 hour of every day. I want the printing press responsible for printing 2,000 page bills sold for scrap. I want us to stop spending.
I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.
Got it?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 02, 2010, 01:09:57 PM
I want spending cuts more than Christmas presents. I want them more than tax cuts. I want them more than whirld peas! It's the only way we can slow the damage to our system and keep from slouching towards socialism. I want them. I want them. I want them. I want the power turned off on the floor of the House and Senate. I want them to fly commercial aircraft. I want congress closed for business except for 1 hour of every day. I want the printing press responsible for printing 2,000 page bills sold for scrap. I want us to stop spending.
I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.
Got it?
Cool I'll start with my spending cuts by taking you off my
Christmas holiday gift list.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 01:12:37 PM
Cool I'll start with my spending cuts by taking you off my Christmas holiday gift list.
The moderator should just make
Christmas Fall Celebration one of those words that is automatically edited when you post. We just need to come up with a good substitute.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 02, 2010, 01:09:57 PM
Nathan, I'm really starting to think that you have your own personal dialog going with me in your HEAD!
I'd also like to see us not shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing the current tax structure to expire.
Got it?
OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?
Also, your constant complaints of socialism make it very hard to take you seriously. You seem to think that the government is collecting an unusually high amount of taxes, which is categorically not the case. Total receipts are presently well within the range they've been since 1950. (prior to 1950, state and local taxes were almost nonexistent, and as federal taxation has decreased, the lower levels of government have made up for it)
It's not as if the facts are hard to find.
Sorry I don't remember every single post I read here. :(
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 02:50:50 PM
OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?
I am also advocating preserving the current tax structure because, as I mentioned above, it would be flat out stupid to allow taxes to rise during a sluggish economy. . .further more, I'd like to break down the rest of your comment, as that it says a lot about you.
QuoteHow is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything?
First of all, the government is not "Giving" it's taking. This phrase should read
QuoteHow is taking less money from people who already have it and are choosing to save it going to help anything
you imply that it's the government's job to take money from people who do not choose to spend it in a way that you approve of.
QuoteWhy not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?
Indeed! Cutting taxes on people who are unemployed or struggling to make ends meat does not help them to find a job or advance. Somthing has to break loose. Jobs must be created and these people, while they do deserve a break, will do far less to create jobs.
If you cut taxes you must do it for those who create the jobs AND for those who are struggling. For instance. . .if the President Obama is successful in cutting taxes on the middle and lower class, but not the "Wealthiest Millionaires and Billionaires," the change will cost the little company I work for an additional $80,000 to $100,000 in taxes for 2011. We are currently entertaining hiring another developer and another engineer but my boss is waiting to see what happens. Sure we can do with fewer people, but it would be nice to be able to take some stress off of other departments.
How many other companies are doing the same? Sure we are sitting on money and ready to pull the trigger on some new positions, but we want to know if we need to reserve some of that money for increased tax burdens. Is that so hard to understand?
How on earth can you blame companies for being cautious with their finances? We just watched thousands fail because they weren't.
Point is now almost moot.
The House voted 234-188 Thursday to pass legislation that would extend only some of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, sending the bill to the Senate.
Twenty Democrats broke with their party and voted against the bill after 33 had defected in a previous test vote. Most of those who voted with Republicans on the first ballot were members of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, and many lost their bids to be reelected last month.
Speaker Pelosi gaveled the vote to a close herself, receiving a smattering of applause from Democratic members. The bill extends only the cuts for the middle-class, letting tax breaks end for families earning more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000. Congress originally authorized the cuts in 2001 and 2003.
Pelosi and the Dems offer their final middle finger to the people as she slams her giant tax gavel into the podium.
Here are the Democrats who voted against the bill (nine of whom lost their reelection bids):
Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.)
Rep. Ron Klein (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)
Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)
Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Rep. Jim Moran (Va.)
Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)
Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. Pete Visclosky (Ind.)
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 02:50:50 PM
OK, so you want spending cuts. Great! So why are you also advocating for tax cuts if you're so concerned about the deficit? How is giving more money to people who already have it and are choosing not to spend it going to help anything? Why not help the people who will spend it because they're having trouble paying their bills?
Also, your constant complaints of socialism make it very hard to take you seriously. You seem to think that the government is collecting an unusually high amount of taxes, which is categorically not the case. Total receipts are presently well within the range they've been since 1950. (prior to 1950, state and local taxes were almost nonexistent, and as federal taxation has decreased, the lower levels of government have made up for it)
It's not as if the facts are hard to find.
Sorry I don't remember every single post I read here. :(
I hate to get hung up on semantics, but where do people keep getting the idea the government is "giving" money to people when they have a tax cut? They are allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Saying the gov't is giving them money smacks of class envy rhetoric.
Along those lines confiscating money from people who at the present are hoarding it to repay debt doesn't put money back into play in the economy either unless our creditors use it to employ our workers and corporations to make goods or construct new plants and infrastructure for them (fat chance).
Until the global economy stabilizes, there's not much which can be done to stimulate more spending, not tax cuts, not tax increases. Confidence will have to increase more than anything.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 02, 2010, 04:12:46 PM
I hate to get hung up on semantics, but where do people keep getting the idea the government is "giving" money to people when they have a tax cut? They are allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Saying the gov't is giving them money smacks of class envy rhetoric.
Along those lines confiscating money from people who at the present are hoarding it to repay debt doesn't put money back into play in the economy either unless our creditors use it to employ our workers and corporations to make goods or construct new plants and infrastructure for them (fat chance).
Until the global economy stabilizes, there's not much which can be done to stimulate more spending, not tax cuts, not tax increases. Confidence will have to increase more than anything.
I call it giving because government can't pay for its operations out of taxes, presently, so it is in a sense giving us borrowed money. Now, I don't mind the borrowing, because the countries that keep dumping their goods on us aren't going to stop taking dollars. If they did that, they'd have no market for their goods, but that's what a tax cut right now is, a transfer of wealth from creditor nations to us, the US taxpayer. (If we ever pay it back, it will be in devalued currency)
Tax cuts on high income earners and corporations won't stimulate anything. They've already got money they refuse to spend. Tax cuts for the struggling, on the other hand, immediately put money into the economy, either in the form of increased consumer spending or in the form of a performing home loan. (don't get me started on mortgage lenders!)
And Gaspar, can you please put the challenged math back on the shelf? Preferably one high enough that you can't get to it again? The two top tax brackets will revert to a rate 4.6% higher than it is today. For that to cost a person $80,000 a year would require that they have an AGI of at least $1.9 million. Not such a small business, I guess. Either that or the business has a profit margin 99% of businesses would kill for.
Odd that you'd put off hiring because of a tax increase, though. All that money you pay them doesn't get taxed. (aside from payroll tax, of course, but that's a different discussion)
Nate, I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes. Your view and understanding of business is vastly different than mine. Don't take that as a slight. Believe it or not, I used to think exactly as you do.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 02, 2010, 07:45:12 PM
Nate, I'm not going to waste any more keystrokes. Your view and understanding of business is vastly different than mine. Don't take that as a slight. Believe it or not, I used to think exactly as you do.
Believe it or not, I'm trying to understand your point of view, hence my quibbling with the numbers you are asserting.
Quote from: nathanm on December 02, 2010, 09:10:16 PM
Believe it or not, I'm trying to understand your point of view, hence my quibbling with the numbers you are asserting.
An AGI of 1.9 million is not a very big company when you have 12-14 employees to support.
Putting a hit on companies like ours takes all of the wind out of the economic sails. We are your typical "Small Business." Our employer works along side us, rewards us when we succeed and digs in with us working late hours on projects when we have dead lines. When the cost of doing business increases the least efficient among us are given leave to pursue other interests.
Currently we are booming! We are booming because businesses that use our services are investing in new technology to replace a shrunken workforce. We are booming because consultants around the country have told businesses who can't afford to hire additional employees that they can realize more efficiency by spending half as much on a more advanced software system. We are also booming to some extent because businesses have been told that they have to make this type of capital investment before 2011 or they face significantly higher tax on the purchase.
Lets not even talk about "Tax Cuts" because that's not what's on the table. What is being debated is the preservation of the current structure. A snapshot of today's tax liability as compared to a snapshot of this time next year.
Preserving the current tax structure for everyone, adds nothing new to the existing economy. . .except confidence!
Preserving the current tax structure for the middle, and struggling classes and increasing the tax burden for businesses like ours, takes from the existing economy and causes companies like ours to limit exposure even more. It eliminates confidence while adding nothing to encourage investment. The Middle-class, and poor have no more money than they did the month before.
The big debate should be focused again on spending, and trying to increase confidence among businesses, consumers, and those struggling to find a job.
I don't know what everyone else is seeing in their industries, but I keep talking to more and more in mine and related fields and everyone is learning to do more with less and it looks like it may remain that way. Sales are good, customers are getting used to longer wait times or purchasing used equipment if they can't get new in a timely manner.
One of the major reasons cited is quite simply many really don't know how long this uptick could last so they don't want to go through the emotional drain of having to lay people off, nor the associated costs of training someone that is lost when they are let go or quit. There's also still either a lot of uncertainty or misinformation in what new tax rates and healthcare mandates will cost employers which is making them reluctant to hire. These aren't Faux Snooze slurping dittoheads, these are everyday business owners and managers who simply are saying there's too much uncertainty and liability to hire people.
The government being poised to raise more tax revenue at this time via tax rate increases indicates to business owners that the government doesn't have very much faith in continued economic growth.
Again, I've said it a million times, tax cuts and tax increases don't hire people. People hire people. They hire them based on real economic data of a growing business model and sound forecasts as well as favorable business environments and confidence in their government and their government's confidence in them. Even if business is good, if it's going to cost more to employ people they will find ways to work more efficiently.
If government had to work as efficient as private industry to stay alive, it could easily be halved.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2010, 11:20:06 AM
An AGI of 1.9 million is not a very big company when you have 12-14 employees to support.
The $1.9 million doesn't support 12-14 employees. AGI (for a pass-through entity) is what's left over after deductible expenses. So basically, before-tax profit (income minus COGS, retirement expenses, payroll not accounted for in COGS, rent, taxes, and insurance) and retained earnings.
I'm not seeing how the owner(s) getting to take home $80,000 less a year is going to make a big difference to your employer. If the businesses' receipts for the year are $1.9 million, it's mathematically impossible that the scheduled reversion to the former tax structure will cost that business $80,000 in extra income tax, unless there's a profit margin somewhere north of 80% involved.
Quote from: nathanm on December 03, 2010, 12:53:13 PM
The $1.9 million doesn't support 12-14 employees. AGI (for a pass-through entity) is what's left over after deductible expenses. So basically, before-tax profit (income minus COGS, retirement expenses, payroll not accounted for in COGS, rent, taxes, and insurance) and retained earnings.
I'm not seeing how the owner(s) getting to take home $80,000 less a year is going to make a big difference to your employer. If the businesses' receipts for the year are $1.9 million, it's mathematically impossible that the scheduled reversion to the former tax structure will cost that business $80,000 in extra income tax, unless there's a profit margin somewhere north of 80% involved.
No, you're still not getting it. a company like ours has to make significantly more than 2 mil to support 12-14 employees. I was referring to your AGI estimate above. If we were to retain an agi of 1.9 it would not make us a very big company.
You were talking as if 1.9 million was "Big Business." It's not. And because small companies can have an AGI in the millions does not give you or anyone else the right to dictate how they should spend that money.
QuoteI'm not seeing how the owner(s) getting to take home $80,000 less a year is going to make a big difference to your employer.
And therein lies the problem. . .You are saying that $80K (in your opinion) should be of little consequence to a successful business owner. You are not accounting for anything outside of this narrow view. What if their is the future acquisition of another business at stake? What if there are plans for expansion or a larger workforce. Business owners invest in their companies to grow, and sometimes even to make payroll.
To imply that the government has the right to take an extra $7,000 a month and that won't have any effect on the growth is wrong.
Quote from: nathanm on December 03, 2010, 12:53:13 PM
I'm not seeing how the owner(s) getting to take home $80,000 less a year is going to make a big difference to your employer. If the businesses' receipts for the year are $1.9 million, it's mathematically impossible that the scheduled reversion to the former tax structure will cost that business $80,000 in extra income tax, unless there's a profit margin somewhere north of 80% involved.
Do you, right now, own a business that employs people or that is interested in succeeding?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2010, 01:21:53 PM
No, you're still not getting it. a company like ours has to make significantly more than 2 mil to support 12-14 employees. I was referring to your AGI estimate above. If we were to retain an agi of 1.9 it would not make us a very big company.
Once again you're missing the distinction between before-tax profit and gross receipts. A company would be doing very, very well to have an AGI of $1.9 million on revenues of $9.5 million. In most industries, that would be great even on revenues twice that.
Given that I don't know the particulars of the business you work for, I can't say whether a 20% profit margin is accurate. If it is, bully for your owners, but if your company was at the median, it would be more like $27 million in revenue to book $1.9 million in profit.
Surely you can see where my skepticism comes in.
Quote from: nathanm on December 03, 2010, 02:34:57 PM
Once again you're missing the distinction between before-tax profit and gross receipts. A company would be doing very, very well to have an AGI of $1.9 million on revenues of $9.5 million. In most industries, that would be great even on revenues twice that.
Given that I don't know the particulars of the business you work for, I can't say whether a 20% profit margin is accurate. If it is, bully for your owners, but if your company was at the median, it would be more like $27 million in revenue to book $1.9 million in profit.
Surely you can see where my skepticism comes in.
I don't really care about your "skepticism" that's a straw-man in this discussion, so I would like to divert you back to the subject. No matter what size, shape or color the company is, if you confiscate profit, it will affect growth in a negative way. Take $10,000, $30,000, or $1,000 extra from a company's profit and it will harm the growth of that company and affect decisions related to expansion and growth.
Somehow attempting to make the point that "It won't matter, because they won't even notice it, because they make too much money anyway" is a load of crap.
When a company makes a profit that profit is used to grow the company. If it is not, then it's no business of yours. Perhaps it's used to buy a fancy house boat, or a really kool pimped-out airplane. Either way it gets re-invested and used. It does not belong to you. It does not belong to the government. Neither of which will spend it more efficiently.
One thing is certain though, if you fark up by raising taxes on people you can kiss what little confidence is left good by and be assured that what profit is left is put in a safe place until policies change. I think we're seeing a lot of that caution now. . .preemptive measures. If you also threaten to raise capital gains taxes in an effort to capture some of this, then you will see a massive market dump now and that money will be even less visible in the future.
The more penalty levied on an exchange of currency the more scarce the exchanges become.
Oh, and I'd like to reiterate again, CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING (it's been at least a page, so I didn't want to get accused of not supporting spending cuts again).
Here is an interesting, albeit snarky, take at tax policy and soaking the rich.
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16763469
Quote from: Gaspar on December 03, 2010, 03:25:02 PM
I don't really care about your "skepticism" that's a straw-man in this discussion, so I would like to divert you back to the subject. No matter what size, shape or color the company is, if you confiscate profit, it will affect growth in a negative way. Take $10,000, $30,000, or $1,000 extra from a company's profit and it will harm the growth of that company and affect decisions related to expansion and growth.
...
When a company makes a profit that profit is used to grow the company. If it is not, then it's no business of yours. Perhaps it's used to buy a fancy house boat, or a really kool pimped-out airplane. Either way it gets re-invested and used.
If the business expands with "profit", it's no longer taxed as such, it's either a business expense or a capital expenditure that is depreciated.
Also, the entire point is that it's not getting re-invested and used, the money in most cases is sitting idle in bank accounts.
You keep asserting that our tax rates are hampering growth when that's clearly not the case. You're trying to apply your ideology to a crisis instead of looking at it and seeing what the real problem is and fixing that.
Guido, 39.6% is not "soaking the rich." (especially when the effective tax rate usually ends up at 30% or less) The 97% top marginal rate we used to have during Eisenhower, that qualifies as soaking the rich.
Good discussion guys, thanks for taking two viewpoints and keeping the discussion relatively civil but let me ask a question and add an observation.
Question. Doesn't this big tax bill and the "Bush Tax Cuts" really apply only to personal income taxes, i.e. 1099 type take home pay and what the CEO gets from investments and deals himself in salary. Aren't taxes on or within a corporate structure/small business filed with different tax forms that aren't a part of this bill?
Added note. I just wish every one who calls for slashing big government spending would take a moment to picture how many paying and (probably non-productive) government jobs that means. I've heard numbers like a 10% cut in governmentt spending equates to 200, 000 paying jobs. The economy struggled to create just over 90, 000 jobs this month and everyone is celebrating. That's a lot of folks to put on the bricks.
Quote from: nathanm on December 03, 2010, 05:35:59 PM
Guido, 39.6% is not "soaking the rich."
Says the person that's not going to be paying that rate.
Quote from: eDuece on December 04, 2010, 03:17:22 PM
Question. Doesn't this big tax bill and the "Bush Tax Cuts" really apply only to personal income taxes, i.e. 1099 type take home pay and what the CEO gets from investments and deals himself in salary. Aren't taxes on or within a corporate structure/small business filed with different tax forms that aren't a part of this bill?
It depends. If an entity such as an LLC or S corp chooses pass through taxation, as most do, the owner(s) pay individual income tax on the profit and retained earnings of the business. If they choose corporate taxation, the business pays corporate income tax and the owner(s) pay tax only on what they get paid by the company. Sometimes paying the individual income tax results in a lower tax bill, and sometimes paying the corporate tax results in the lower tax bill. It's highly dependent on individual circumstances.
This is why it's important to have a good accountant (or, more unlikely, a lot of spare time to figure it out) if you run a business.
Quote from: guido911 on December 04, 2010, 04:36:12 PM
Says the person that's not going to be paying that rate.
Says the person who can look at historical tax rates in this country and current tax rates in other countries.
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2010, 04:38:23 PM
Says the person who can look at historical tax rates in this country and current tax rates in other countries.
So freakin what people paid back in the fifties in federal income tax or what they pay overseas. In my view giving 40 cents of every dollar I earn (note, that I EARN from years of hard work and sacrifice) is outrageous. Throw in state and property taxes, which in part goes to funding public schools that my children do not attend, then where are we? I am thankful that the U.S. Senate put the brakes on giving tax breaks to only one segment of our society today.
Quote from: guido911 on December 04, 2010, 04:54:32 PM
So freakin what people paid back in the fifties in federal income tax or what they pay overseas. In my view giving 40 cents of every dollar I earn (note, that I EARN from years of hard work and sacrifice) is outrageous. Throw in state and property taxes, which in part goes to funding public schools that my children do not attend, then where are we? I am thankful that the U.S. Senate put the brakes on giving tax breaks to only one segment of our society today.
Was that a burrito?
Quote from: guido911 on December 04, 2010, 04:54:32 PM
So freakin what people paid back in the fifties in federal income tax or what they pay overseas. In my view giving 40 cents of every dollar I earn (note, that I EARN from years of hard work and sacrifice) is outrageous. Throw in state and property taxes, which in part goes to funding public schools that my children do not attend, then where are we? I am thankful that the U.S. Senate put the brakes on giving tax breaks to only one segment of our society today.
You'll be astounded to learn that we collectively have been paying the same level of tax relative to GDP as we have since 1950. Federal tax cuts just end up being replaced by increased state and local taxes.
Also, the "middle class tax cut" applies equally to all taxpayers who aren't subject to AMT. Why do you think the rich should get a second tax cut the rest of us don't get?
Further, it's mathematically impossible for you to pay 40% in federal income tax on your income. It's also mathematically impossible for you to pay 39.6% of your income in federal income tax. Or 35% presently.
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2010, 07:09:03 PM
Further, it's mathematically impossible for you to pay 40% in federal income tax on your income. It's also mathematically impossible for you to pay 39.6% of your income in federal income tax. Or 35% presently.
Giving 35% of any dollar I earn to the feds directly in income tax is too much. Fortunately, I don't make enough to be in that bracket.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 04, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Fortunately, I don't make enough to be in that bracket.
I have the deal of the century for you. If you ever earn enough money to be in the top tax bracket, you can give me the excess so you don't have to pay any evil income tax. ;D
I'd rather have 60.4 cents on the dollar than nothing, but maybe that's just me.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 04, 2010, 07:52:26 PM
Giving 35% of any dollar I earn to the feds directly in income tax is too much. Fortunately, I don't make enough to be in that bracket.
Unfortunately, there are many "have nots" out there that believe that the "rich" got that way through some underhanded activity or were otherwise "fortunate" (as opposed to those without money or jobs being "unfortunate") and are morally required to pay more. Heck, even Biden believes paying more in taxes is "patriotic".
How in the hell does this draft dodger get away with talking about what is "patriotic". I digress.
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2010, 08:02:41 PM
I have the deal of the century for you. If you ever earn enough money to be in the top tax bracket, you can give me the excess so you don't have to pay any evil income tax. ;D
I'd rather have 60.4 cents on the dollar than nothing, but maybe that's just me.
Spoken like a true lib. gimme gimme gimme.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCBT2qgqV7GJCKOEQbyAaE-E_Kyn-LawlTohEp6Lt2TgE1laLl)
Quote from: guido911 on December 04, 2010, 08:18:29 PM
Spoken like a true lib. gimme gimme gimme.
Yeah, that's it. The one who is arguing in favor of more taxes is the one asking for the handout. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2010, 08:02:41 PM
I have the deal of the century for you. If you ever earn enough money to be in the top tax bracket, you can give me the excess so you don't have to pay any evil income tax. ;D
I'd rather have 60.4 cents on the dollar than nothing, but maybe that's just me.
I'd rather have about 80 cents on the dollar than 60.4. Notice I did not try to keep it all.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2010, 10:31:16 AM
I'd rather have about 80 cents on the dollar than 60.4. Notice I did not try to keep it all.
Savagely cut the military and you can probably get there, until the state gets their cut anyway..
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 11:03:45 AM
Savagely cut the military and you can probably get there...
We have had tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and have my entire life. We can also name other countries with the same. Why? When we will stop spending billions to be the police force for the world?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 05, 2010, 11:23:50 AM
We have had tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and have my entire life. We can also name other countries with the same. Why? When we will stop spending billions to be the police force for the world?
Maybe we could start charging for our services.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 05, 2010, 11:23:50 AM
We have had tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Korea and have my entire life. We can also name other countries with the same. Why? When we will stop spending billions to be the police force for the world?
Probably when we stop requiring the world to pay tribute in the form of using the dollar for trade so we can run our trade and fiscal deficits without actually paying for it.
Red Arrow, we do charge. Well, I don't know specifically about Korea, but West Germany paid us back when we had soldiers stationed there and Japan shares the cost of US forces stationed there.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 11:43:26 AM
Red Arrow, we do charge. Well, I don't know specifically about Korea, but West Germany paid us back when we had soldiers stationed there and Japan shares the cost of US forces stationed there.
Maybe some of the rest would just as soon have us leave. The UN has proven to be ineffective. Have any ideas? Have the whole world be like Afghanistan with tribal war lords/countries? I don't have a good solution.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2010, 11:59:01 AM
Have the whole world be like Afghanistan with tribal war lords/countries?
A family member of mine who is in the Army and has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan seems to think that it's a lost cause unless we want to spend 20 years there learnin' 'em in the ways of civil society. He says they simply don't have a sense of what it's like to do things differently.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 12:18:16 PM
A family member of mine who is in the Army and has spent a lot of time in Afghanistan seems to think that it's a lost cause unless we want to spend 20 years there learnin' 'em in the ways of civil society. He says they simply don't have a sense of what it's like to do things differently.
I don't like being the world's police force but can you imagine the whole world being like Afghanistan?
Quote from: nathanm on December 04, 2010, 08:39:17 PM
Yeah, that's it. The one who is arguing in favor of more taxes is the one asking for the handout. ::)
A handout? It's my damned money--not yours or the government's money. More dumb liberal speak.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2010, 04:02:58 PM
A handout? It's my damned money--not yours or the government's money. More dumb liberal speak.
Our government is funded with borrowed money. If that's not a handout, I don't know what is.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 04:39:50 PM
Our government is funded with borrowed money. If that's not a handout, I don't know what is.
One heck of a stupid retort. What's the matter with you today.
That's the stupid of it - it actually is NOT your money. Every one of us has "enjoyed" the benefit from 30 years of out of control deficit spending, leaving it to out kids and grandkids to deal with the disgusting mess. From our imperialist voyeurism (8+ major military bases remaining in Okinawa alone, 30% of the land) to out of control "welfare state" - and that is corporate America welfare at least as much if not more so than "personal" welfare. (No? Then why did we subsidize big oil for 50 years+. Why do we still subsidize large corporate-farm-America still? Why do we subsidize nuclear power but not solar and wind?)
YOUR money disappeared when the deficit became what it is. And yes, we are demanding and depending on the rest of the world to support our crap by propping up the dollar. Econ 101.
But then I would never expect anyone to understand even those basics who thinks "its their damn money". No, it isn't.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 05, 2010, 06:56:12 PM
That's the stupid of it - it actually is NOT your money. Every one of us has "enjoyed" the benefit from 30 years of out of control deficit spending, leaving it to out kids and grandkids to deal with the disgusting mess. From our imperialist voyeurism to out of control "welfare state" - and that is corporate America welfare at least as much if not more so than "personal" welfare. (No? Then why did we subsidize big oil for 50 years+. Why do we still subsidize large corporate-farm-America still? Why do we subsidize nuclear power but not solar and wind?)
YOUR money disappeared when the deficit became what it is. And yes, we are demanding and depending on the rest of the world to support our crap by propping up the dollar. Econ 101.
But then I would never expect anyone to understand even those basics who thinks "its their damn money". No, it isn't.
Just what I expected to hear from the likes of you. And by the way, if everyone enjoyed the fruits of run away spending, then everyone should pay the exact same amount. Right? I will be looking forward to you shelling out six figures in federal income next April like many of those earning more than 250K.
Edited: I guess you believe like Nate that I am getting a handout from the government if my taxes do not go up. I say that because that is why I said it's my money. And it is MY MONEY. The fact that our government gives away money to the less fortunate in the form of extended unemployment benefits, welfare, medicare, and whatever freakin else entitlement program is out there-overwhelmingly paid for by those evil rich people-does not change the fact that I earned my money.
And yet, you have no rational argument to advance to the "like of me". Just "it's my damn money"? That's it??
Yeah, the poor should have to pay the same 100,000 that the rich should pay. That sounds like equal protection under the law to me. Oh, wait, that's almost how it is done today! Even better - the rich get to skate with their massive 16 or 17% tax load while the poor working slob taking home a W-2 gets to pay 40%.
"The law in its infinite wisdom prohibits the rich man as well as the poor from sleeping under a bridge."
So, given the overall tone, it would seem that you would be one of those millionaires who gets to skate by at the 17%. Nice. I hope to be there with you soon.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 05, 2010, 07:05:28 PM
And yet, you have no rational argument to advance to the "like of me". Just "it's my damn money"? That's it??
Yeah, the poor should have to pay the same 100,000 that the rich should pay. That sounds like equal protection under the law to me. Oh, wait, that's almost how it is done today! Even better - the rich get to skate with their massive 16 or 17% tax load while the poor working slob taking home a W-2 gets to pay 40%.
"The law in its infinite wisdom prohibits the rich man as well as the poor from sleeping under a bridge."
Well, you asked for it. The source of hieron's views found:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lj5KP8OgZVk/SCOqfKtAOsI/AAAAAAAACFA/2zl-Lq5PzLE/s400/8557060_f14bd4f251.jpg)
Incidentally, how in the hell does "equal protection" fit in this discussion.
?
How does a picture of a magnificent hookah fit in?
Or talk about handouts? Or "its my damned money", when its not. Or saying that it isn't the governments money - when that IS the entity that has been chosen to handle the topics covered by the tax/money discussion - since about what, late 1700's sometime? Or "more dumb liberal speak"?
Nice pipe, though!
Equal protection? I sense that something at least casually related might be the only thing keeping the richest of the rich from getting there taxes cut to 5% while keeping the rest of us at 40%. Surely you have heard the chant - "cut taxes"? Fallin was chanting it just a few weeks ago! Palin has been blathering about it for two years.
Looking forward to joining the exalted ranks of the privileged rich,
H
And it's H e i r o n. And if you were trying to make a weak allusion to the drug it would be H e r o i n.
Mox nix to me. Either way is fine. (And for the purists, ok, ok, it is really spelled macht nichts.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 05, 2010, 07:20:59 PM
And it's H e i r o n. And if you were trying to make a weak allusion to the drug it would be H e r o i n.
Mox nix to me. Either way is fine. (And for the purists, ok, ok, it is really spelled macht nichts.)
I was not making a heroin comparison. Your id in this forum is too damned long (waiting for BB to chime in ;D)
Just hashish, or crack then for the hookah? Or maybe just a little plain old fashioned Mary Jane?
I really DO like that water pipe!! That is too cool! Would like to have that for a little old fashioned Borkum Riff!! (The tobacco, not the lighthouse!) Gotta love a little whiskey with your nicotine!! Take me back to my '60s childhood!!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 05, 2010, 07:31:13 PM
Just hashish, or crack then for the hookah? Or maybe just a little plain old fashioned Mary Jane?
I really DO like that water pipe!! That is too cool! Would like to have that for a little old fashioned Borkum Riff!! (The tobacco, not the lighthouse!) Gotta love a little whiskey with your nicotine!! Take me back to my '60s childhood!!
You are WAY WAY over enjoying that hookah. I am a little frightened.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2010, 06:36:30 PM
One heck of a stupid retort. What's the matter with you today.
It's only stupid if you think about government funding in a completely superficial manner. Your tax cuts are a transfer of wealth from the government's balance sheet (and ultimately from nations holding our dollars) to your own.
Personally, I think the deficit is pretty much irrelevant at present, but that's not the worldview to which you subscribe, so I'm working within (what I understand to be) your framework. I think keeping the second tax cut for folks in the top bracket doesn't really matter one way or the other to the strength of our economy. Higher income people are not, by and large, spending as high a proportion of their income. I think keeping the middle class tax cut and possibly even cutting the bottom few tax brackets further would improve our economic outlook, because they already spend every dime they get their hands on.
There's a better ROI on middle income tax cuts right now. And before you start calling that unfair, remember that everyone gets a tax cut when that happens. A 5% cut on the first three brackets would reduce your tax burden $6800 a year. (Assuming that you and your spouse make at least $137,050 combined and file jointly)
Yes! Overenjoying the hookah.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 07:45:23 PM
It's only stupid if you think about government funding in a completely superficial manner. Your tax cuts are a transfer of wealth from the government's balance sheet (and ultimately from nations holding our dollars) to your own.
Personally, I think the deficit is pretty much irrelevant at present, but that's not the worldview to which you subscribe, so I'm working within (what I understand to be) your framework. I think keeping the second tax cut for folks in the top bracket doesn't really matter one way or the other to the strength of our economy. Higher income people are not, by and large, spending as high a proportion of their income. I think keeping the middle class tax cut and possibly even cutting the bottom few tax brackets further would improve our economic outlook, because they already spend every dime they get their hands on.
There's a better ROI on middle income tax cuts right now. And before you start calling that unfair, remember that everyone gets a tax cut when that happens. A 5% cut on the first three brackets would reduce your tax burden $6800 a year. (Assuming that you and your spouse make at least $137,050 combined and file jointly)
What are you saying, the government already has factored in my income tax before I have even earned my income? Boy they will really be pissed if I decide to work less in order to show less income and therefore less income to tax. BTW, I tried that a year ago when I left the firm practice. My phone just kept on ringing and my competitive nature kicked in.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 05, 2010, 06:56:12 PM
That's the stupid of it - it actually is NOT your money.
I suppose we could expand that a bit. Since it's NOT your money, you don't own anything since you bought it with someone else's (the government's) money. All that stuff about due process etc can be forgotten since it's not your stuff to begin with. House, car, clothes on your body....all belongs to the government.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2010, 08:05:29 PM
I suppose we could expand that a bit. Since it's NOT your money, you don't own anything since you bought it with someone else's (the government's) money. All that stuff about due process etc can be forgotten since it's not your stuff to begin with. House, car, clothes on your body....all belongs to the government.
I am sickened by how well reasoned you can be sometimes.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2010, 08:01:06 PM
What are you saying, the government already has factored in my income tax before I have even earned my income?
No, I'm saying you (and we all) have services provisioned in our name, goods purchased in our name, and salaries paid in our name that we do not pay for. Thus, there is a transfer of wealth from creditor nations to our personal balance sheets. Yeah, you didn't ask for government subsidized health care, but I didn't ask for an intricate network of roads in far flung parts of Tulsa or a giant military. We all get to pay for a bunch of stuff we don't want to pay for. That's part of living in a society with other people. You don't always get exactly what you want.
You're married, so surely you understand that concept. ;)
Also, I don't know exactly what the vegetable was trying to say, but money that you earn is indeed your money, at least as much as anything is ever yours. The problem is that there is this other money that is being spent for you, above and beyond what you remit to the government each year. You get benefits that you don't pay for, thus the wealth transfer. You can see it when it's welfare for poor people, why not when it's welfare for the not-poor? You have said in the past that you pay your own way, but you don't. None of us do. The Chinese pay for it, the Germans pay for it, the Vietnamese pay for it. (Thanks, Tricky Dick!) The best part is that they do it willingly. Their willingness does not change the nature of what is happening, though.
Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I work because I enjoy what I do. If I didn't like my line of work, I'd try and find another way to be useful. Sitting around all day with nothing to do is really quite boring.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2010, 08:23:13 PM
Furthermore, I don't know about you, but I work because I enjoy what I do. If I didn't like my line of work, I'd try and find another way to be useful. Sitting around all day with nothing to do is really quite boring.
IMO, there is nothing more rewarding than helping someone who needs it but cannot find anyone to help. That's why I keep on going. BTW, the law business is very good. In the words of Lt. Aldo Raine, my "business is a boomin'".
I always liked Galbraith's definition of supply side economics, the "trickle down" effect and the theory that the rich need tax breaks so they can create jobs. It went something like, "if you just stuff enough oats into the horses their will always be enough left behind on the road for the sparrows"
Quote from: eDuece on December 05, 2010, 10:09:27 PM
I always liked Galbraith's definition of supply side economics, the "trickle down" effect and the theory that the rich need tax breaks so they can create jobs. It went something like, "if you just stuff enough oats into the horses their will always be enough left behind on the road for the sparrows"
Funny. Welcome aboard.
And I know all here can understand this - and do understand - but ambiguate intentionally.
The part that is NOT your money is the part that is the difference between what is paid for by receipts of the government and the amount that is 'borrowed' to support the deficit. It is that extra "3%" that the Bush tax cuts accounted for, taking us on a $500 billion swing from surplus to deficit. THAT is the difference that is NOT "your money". Totaling about $13 trillion now. But everyone already knew that.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 06, 2010, 10:45:00 AM
And I know all here can understand this - and do understand - but ambiguate intentionally.
The part that is NOT your money is the part that is the difference between what is paid for by receipts of the government and the amount that is 'borrowed' to support the deficit. It is that extra "3%" that the Bush tax cuts accounted for, taking us on a $500 billion swing from surplus to deficit. THAT is the difference that is NOT "your money". Totaling about $13 trillion now. But everyone already knew that.
Latest news from the AP: Compromise. . .2 more years of Bush tax structure, and another year of unemployment benefits.
Really better pass some spending cuts now!
WASHINGTON (AP) - An outline of a bipartisan economic package is emerging that would temporarily extend the Bush-era tax rates for all taxpayers, while extending jobless benefits for millions of Americans.
Differences remained over details, including White House demands for middle- and low-income tax credits. But Republicans and Democrats appeared to come together Sunday, raising the possibility of a deal in Congress by the end of the week.
Some Democrats continued to object to extending current tax rates for high earners.
But without action, lawmakers face the prospect of delivering a tax hike to all taxpayers at the end of the year, when the current rates expire and revert to higher pre-2001 and 2003 levels.
Negotiations between the Obama administration and a bipartisan group of lawmakers centered on a two-year extension of current rates.
At the same time, a jump in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent is putting pressure on Republicans to accede to President Barack Obama's demand that Congress extend unemployment insurance for a year. GOP congressional leaders had opposed an extension of benefits without cuts elsewhere in the federal budget.
"I think most folks believe the recipe would include at least an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed and an extension of all of the tax rates for all Americans for some period of time," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Senate's Republican negotiator in the talks.
"Without unemployment benefits being extended, personally, this is a nonstarter," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership.
Republicans have insisted that any extension of jobless aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. The White House opposes that, saying such cuts are economically damaging during a weak recovery.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Republicans would probably cede that point to the Democrats.Looks like the "Party of No" is willing to work with this President, however it's his own party that's putting up the fight.
More unsustainable spending. It's hardly fiscally conservative to agree to extending a massive spending program (extended U/E benefits) without an increase in revenue (continuing the Bush tax cuts).
Neither extending U/E benefits nor a 3% tax increase on income over $250K is going to make a huge dent in the economy. What happens a year down the road when we still are at 9.5% U/E though? At what point do we have to say we've done all we can to help these displaced workers and pull the safety net out? How many more times will we raise the debt ceiling over the next two years to pay for continued deficit spending?
Now we can see if more of a recovery will happen. If it doesn't happen, raise the tax rate, call trickle-down BS and move on.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2010, 10:51:53 AM
Looks like the "Party of No" is willing to work with this President, however it's his own party that's putting up the fight.
That's a very narrow definition of "working with," but I'll give it to you.
We've come to a sad pass when congressional Democrats have a legitimate beef with how poorly the Whitehouse has done negotiating a settlement to both issues.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 11:01:37 AM
At what point do we have to say we've done all we can to help these displaced workers and pull the safety net out? How many more times will we raise the debt ceiling over the next two years to pay for continued deficit spending?
That's a modest proposal. The question is, will we be ready for the longer term effects of that sort of permanent unemployment? Much higher crime rates, much worse public health, a more divided and generally poorer society.
I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice. There simply aren't enough jobs to go around. The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants. This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession.
Linking the tax cuts with an unemployment extension was supremely ironic, but enlightening at least in that it clarified whose side the Republicans are on: they'll essentially hold the entire congress hostage until the richest folks in the country are guaranteed their tax cut, while they'll fight tooth and nail to shut off unemployment to millions of people.
What's sad is that this situation should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone in government, and right now it's almost permanent background noise.
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 11:37:23 AM
That's a modest proposal. The question is, will we be ready for the longer term effects of that sort of permanent unemployment? Much higher crime rates, much worse public health, a more divided and generally poorer society.
I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice. There simply aren't enough jobs to go around. The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants. This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession.
Linking the tax cuts with an unemployment extension was supremely ironic, but enlightening at least in that it clarified whose side the Republicans are on: they'll essentially hold the entire congress hostage until the richest folks in the country are guaranteed their tax cut, while they'll fight tooth and nail to shut off unemployment to millions of people.
What's sad is that this situation should be absolutely unacceptable to everyone in government, and right now it's almost permanent background noise.
You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not. It was a tax cut when it was enacted. It's continuing the current tax rate that resulted from that which is at stake. I'm pretty ambivalent about letting this expire, but it's something the GOP thinks they must do to appease those who elected them. Thus far the lowered rates have not resulted in creating enough jobs to start making a dent in U/E, apparently. It's kind of hard to track how many jobs have been saved as a result of maintaining the current rate. I don't really believe in such mental gymnastics to start with. I notice the admin finally dropped that practice after they finally realized how hokey that concept was.
Well, I guess we will get to see if maintaining the lower tax rates will create demand for more workers and bring more of these people off the dole. If it doesn't, the GOP has some 'splainin' to do about trickle-down economics. Economic theory is just that: theory.
Right now, it's an employers market. Companies have their pick of talent right now and for the most part, the best, most resourceful, and most productive are currently employed. I'm sure there are some good ones sitting on the side line who could be employed if they were forced to cast a wider net and look in different career areas than they would have considered before (not necessarily for less pay) or look for work in a different geographic zone. That's how it was done before the Federal gov't started allowing people to ride U/E benefits for a couple of years.
I grapple with the idea of saying: "sorry no more U/E" to someone in an area with 15% U/E where the chances of finding a job is truly bleak. Yet, keeping them as a subject on the Government dole isn't always the most compassionate solution either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336078/Post-recession-unemployment-scariest-job-chart-worst-WW2.html
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 11:37:23 AM
That's
I feel like I have to repeat this every day to certain people in my office, but it's not like these are people who are out of work by choice. There simply aren't enough jobs to go around. The latest I've heard (and i don't have a cite; it was on the radio) was one open job for every five applicants. This tracks what it's been since the beginning of the recession.
That's a fair assessment to some extent. I still know people "holding out for a management position." The employers I know who are looking for people are being very picky. I know the HR person in one local company that has 80 positions open but is not advertising because last time she did they got thousands of applicants, many of which were interested in interviews only to preserve their unemployment benefits. Each position cost them hundreds of hours. So now they are currently only using word-of-mouth, recruiting practices, and their internal HR people.
You can look at the paper today and see hundreds of ads that now only advertise a contact email through the Tulsa World, or the online tools that keep the business name confidential. There are plenty of very qualified people out there who have now dumbed down their resume's in an attempt to get more play, but are reluctant to accept positions that don't offer the same salary or benefits they were accustomed to. They are convinced they can ride the buss until their limo pulls up.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 11:57:26 AM
You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not. It was a tax cut when it was enacted. It's continuing the current tax rate that resulted from that which is at stake. I'm pretty ambivalent about letting this expire, but it's something the GOP thinks they must do to appease those who elected them. Thus far the lowered rates have not resulted in creating enough jobs to start making a dent in U/E, apparently. It's kind of hard to track how many jobs have been saved as a result of maintaining the current rate. I don't really believe in such mental gymnastics to start with. I notice the admin finally dropped that practice after they finally realized how hokey that concept was.
Well, I guess we will get to see if maintaining the lower tax rates will create demand for more workers and bring more of these people off the dole. If it doesn't, the GOP has some 'splainin' to do about trickle-down economics. Economic theory is just that: theory.
Right now, it's an employers market. Companies have their pick of talent right now and for the most part, the best, most resourceful, and most productive are currently employed. I'm sure there are some good ones sitting on the side line who could be employed if they were forced to cast a wider net and look in different career areas than they would have considered before (not necessarily for less pay) or look for work in a different geographic zone. That's how it was done before the Federal gov't started allowing people to ride U/E benefits for a couple of years.
I grapple with the idea of saying: "sorry no more U/E" to someone in an area with 15% U/E where the chances of finding a job is truly bleak. Yet, keeping them as a subject on the Government dole isn't always the most compassionate solution either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336078/Post-recession-unemployment-scariest-job-chart-worst-WW2.html
I understand the moral hazard argument for UI, but that has to exist in a place where UI benefits are cushier than the benefits of employment. And that's simply not the case. Maximum UI benefits in OK total something like $22,360 a year, which is above the poverty level for a family of four by $340.00 (benefits are also taxable, btw, and that's a maximum allowance, not a rate that everyone gets). Anything more than an entry level burger-flipping job will be competitive or better.
If the country is in a situation where unemployment eases within a year or less, UI is a great thing for the middle class; it gives people the support to bridge times of employment without forcing them into such economic distress that they lose their insurance, their savings, their house, their vehicle -- all the markers of the middle class. If unemployment continues on without that support -- either the lack of jobs is extended (like now) or UI benefits are dropped -- you'll see people drop out of the middle class and into poverty. A place from which it's far more difficult to rise out of and back into the prior social strata.
So: all of this is to say, it's in our society's best interest to pay this out as long as possible to keep our middle class folks bridged into the next employment surge. Of course, time is still a killer, and the people who've been out of work for a year or so have lost valuable experience, education, and job skills. Anecdotal: in our sales office, we're down one of our junior members. It's still an important slot, and we're starting to see the lack of that position show up in our revenue. We've been without it for a couple of months now, and while it's been posted and we've received a lot of resumes, my direct boss has limited his search to 1) people who had prior hotel sales experience or 2) people who are currently employed in hotel sales and can be stolen away. So he's not looking at hiring, say, a laid off sales coordinator from HSBC who might have "sales" experience but not in hotels. Even though this is a junior position we're hiring for, he's much more interested in hiring a person who is
currently hired and can be stolen, probably for more money than someone who might be unemployed and have similar skills but not exact matches and be hired for relatively cheap.
This has been an emblematic example for me as to what the structurally unemployed are facing out there. Not just a job market with not enough open slots, but a job market where, even if the slots were open, you're not a valued enough worker to fill them.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2010, 12:18:34 PM
I know the HR person in one local company that has 80 positions open but is not advertising because last time she did they got thousands of applicants, many of which were interested in interviews only to preserve their unemployment benefits.
Wow. That's astounding cynicism, verging on misanthropy. You're telling me that even applicants for open positions are really just looking to stay on the cheapo federal dole?
You really must hate your fellow Americans. Or should I say, "all those disgusting Welfare Queens."
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 12:49:49 PM
Wow. That's astounding cynicism, verging on misanthropy. You're telling me that even applicants for open positions are really just looking to stay on the cheapo federal dole?
You really must hate your fellow Americans. Or should I say, "all those disgusting Welfare Queens."
No, I'm just sharing what she told me.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 11:57:26 AM
You make this sound like a new tax cut, it's not. It was a tax cut when it was enacted.
It depends on how you look at it. From where I sit, it's another tax cut. Why? Because the law that was passed under Bush was a temporary tax cut and now we're extending it. The only reason I care in the least about what tax rate anybody pays is that increased income inequality is making our financial system much less stable, and the stability of our financial system is precisely the thing that makes us the economic powerhouse we are.
Personally, I think all the austerity talk is BS. I was wrong when I called Cheney an idiot for saying deficits don't matter, because I couldn't at the time think of a situation in which that was the case. (unimaginative, I guess)
As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden. This is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.
Right now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it. Unless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2010, 12:53:43 PM
No, I'm just sharing what she told me.
Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.
Quote from: swake on December 06, 2010, 01:02:57 PM
Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.
Gaspar seems to know a lot of people who have no sense. It's really quite emblematic of the decline of business in our country, although I thought most of that dysfunction was confined to the really large companies.
Quote from: swake on December 06, 2010, 01:02:57 PM
Then how in the world is she planning on filling 80 positions. That just makes no sense.
Well, she called a recruiter, and she called several of her clients/vendors (me being one of them).
I can tell you from first-hand experience, I'm sure she had over 80 qualified resumes on her desk by the end of the day (that was Friday). Talked to her this morning and she is now hiring an temp HR person (that I referred to her), so I assume she's not having any trouble. LOL!
I'm not clear why this would not make sense?
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 01:04:15 PM
Gaspar seems to know a lot of people who have no sense. It's really quite emblematic of the decline of business in our country, although I thought most of that dysfunction was confined to the really large companies.
Most of the people I know are senseless. :o
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 01:02:01 PM
As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden.
Hate your country much?
QuoteThis is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.
No compassion?
QuoteRight now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it.
We could always be more like India?
QuoteUnless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)
But isn't that what your proposing? A lower standard of living?
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2010, 01:19:11 PM
Hate your country much?
No compassion?
We could always be more like India?
But isn't that what your proposing? A lower standard of living?
I'm proposing no such thing. Read my post. Identification is not a call for change.
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 01:02:01 PM
It depends on how you look at it. From where I sit, it's another tax cut. Why? Because the law that was passed under Bush was a temporary tax cut and now we're extending it. The only reason I care in the least about what tax rate anybody pays is that increased income inequality is making our financial system much less stable, and the stability of our financial system is precisely the thing that makes us the economic powerhouse we are.
Personally, I think all the austerity talk is BS. I was wrong when I called Cheney an idiot for saying deficits don't matter, because I couldn't at the time think of a situation in which that was the case. (unimaginative, I guess)
As long as we're a quasi-imperial power, deficits really don't matter. Make no mistake, we are imperialist, just in a different way than previous imperialist powers. We have duped the rest of the world into thinking it's good for them to give us stuff for essentially worthless future dollars. As long as we've got the biggest stock market and the biggest reserve currency, we're golden. This is why I'm not too terribly upset that the Eurozone is going down in flames.
Right now, we use resources so far in excess of our proportion of the world population, it would make just about anybody sick if they knew about it. Unless we want to find ourselves with a declining standard of living, we have to continue to hoodwink the rest of the world into thinking our excess consumption is to their benefit. (I'm channeling Brzezinski here)
Please explain how "income inequality" destabilizes financial markets and how raising taxes purports to close that gap. According to the liberals on this board, wages for the middle class are relatively flat. Higher taxes have never managed to close that gap with the exception of creating government positions with better pay and benefits than the private sector. Somewhere this myth started that the middle class is impoverished by the wealthy and held down intentionally to make the rich more wealthy.
You've got an emerging world power in China and they are buying loads of our debt. It may not matter at the moment, but it will in the not too distant future no matter what label you put on the U.S. It's no secret our excesses are ludicrous. The rest of the world already knows this and it's fine with them they are making hay while the sun is shining. We will consume ourselves into a hole and when it's time to dig out I hate to see who is holding the note.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 01:26:52 PM
Please explain how "income inequality" destabilizes financial markets and how raising taxes purports to close that gap. According to the liberals on this board, wages for the middle class are relatively flat. Higher taxes have never managed to close that gap with the exception of creating government positions with better pay and benefits than the private sector. Somewhere this myth started that the middle class is impoverished by the wealthy and held down intentionally to make the rich more wealthy.
You've got an emerging world power in China and they are buying loads of our debt. It may not matter at the moment, but it will in the not too distant future no matter what label you put on the U.S. It's no secret our excesses are ludicrous. The rest of the world already knows this and it's fine with them they are making hay while the sun is shining. We will consume ourselves into a hole and when it's time to dig out I hate to see who is holding the note.
Actually, in the era of higher taxes, we had less income inequality. Yes, correlation is not causation and all that, but it is pretty striking. Greater income equality is good for the economy (up to a point) because it increases the size of the market. The larger the market, the better it works. Conversely, as the wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, there is less use for it, people get put out of jobs, and eventually it all ends up in the hands of a few people. You can see this in effect in a lot of third world countries, and early industrial societies. This effect was one of the prime causes of the rise of socialist thinking in the late 1800s. It's basic capitalist economics. Tax policy may not, in fact, be the best way to correct the problem, but it is a problem that needs to be examined more closely and not just swept under the rug.
China isn't doing anything until they get their internal problems under control. Their export-based economy and artificially devalued currency is leading to rampant inflation over there. They recently implemented domestic price controls. I'm no more worried about them than Reagan was about the Soviets in their waning days. Even better, China simply can't afford to cut us off. We're their biggest market, since their domestic market is so sorely underdeveloped. If they cut us off, they'll throw millions out of work and spark a revolt. It's simply not a realistic scenario. And even if they do, bully for us. The pain will be short term, and we'll get a larger manufacturing base out of the deal.
In all this, you have to remember that we control the currency, so we control the world markets. We can't go hog wild just at the moment because the Euro is still in play, but that doesn't seem like it's going to last too long at the rate they're going.
Yeah, hell has indeed frozen over, I'm talking like a neocon.
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 01:23:41 PM
I'm proposing no such thing. Read my post. Identification is not a call for change.
My bad, I thought that was a litany of things you would like to Change.
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 01:43:22 PM
Actually, in the era of higher taxes, we had less income inequality. Yes, correlation is not causation and all that, but it is pretty striking. Greater income equality is good for the economy (up to a point) because it increases the size of the market. The larger the market, the better it works. Conversely, as the wealth gets concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, there is less use for it, people get put out of jobs, and eventually it all ends up in the hands of a few people. You can see this in effect in a lot of third world countries, and early industrial societies. This effect was one of the prime causes of the rise of socialist thinking in the late 1800s. It's basic capitalist economics. Tax policy may not, in fact, be the best way to correct the problem, but it is a problem that needs to be examined more closely and not just swept under the rug.
China isn't doing anything until they get their internal problems under control. Their export-based economy and artificially devalued currency is leading to rampant inflation over there. They recently implemented domestic price controls. I'm no more worried about them than Reagan was about the Soviets in their waning days. Even better, China simply can't afford to cut us off. We're their biggest market, since their domestic market is so sorely underdeveloped. If they cut us off, they'll throw millions out of work and spark a revolt. It's simply not a realistic scenario. And even if they do, bully for us. The pain will be short term, and we'll get a larger manufacturing base out of the deal.
In all this, you have to remember that we control the currency, so we control the world markets. We can't go hog wild just at the moment because the Euro is still in play, but that doesn't seem like it's going to last too long at the rate they're going.
Yeah, hell has indeed frozen over, I'm talking like a neocon.
Income inequality results because there are a couple of classes of people in a free market economy: those who create jobs for themselves and others and those who work for people who create jobs. That's how it works. If people are concerned about disparity in income, they can refuse to work or figure out a way to become one of the creators.
It's a far better system than one where the government creates the jobs and pre-determines the worth of each worker. Free markets allow workers to shop their worth and hopefully increase their income. It also allows workers the freedom to eventually start their own business and become one of those who provides jobs. There's a reward for creating productivity and it's in the form of higher income.
"Income disparity" is a term dreamed up by university eggheads and political idealists who have never created a job in their entire life. They live in a theoretical world with little basis in reality. When a government moves to raise taxes and claim more of the rewards of that productivity under the guise of re-apportioning wealth, leveling the playing field, or income redistribution it's punitive and the government is yet again trying to determine what each person should be allowed to earn. As a libertarian thinker, this in itself is the major issue I have with a tax increase. It's authoritarianism. Understanding that our government has needs and they have to be paid for is a whole other issue, but that's not the reason stated in wanting to let these cuts expire. Saying we need to pay down the debt has been a secondary and more recent purpose stated in needing to let the cuts expire.
The biggest problem you have now economically is with lower demand, companies and individuals aren't doing what's been done in the past: getting ahead on expansion and improvements while it's cheaper to do so. If the majority of millionaires and CEO's see the current government as anti-business, these people simply will continue to sit on piles of cash. Especially if they think increased productivity and output with their money will result in them paying higher taxes on it than they will pay with passive investment or simply doing nothing more than camping out in treasury bills.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2010, 01:13:03 PM
Well, she called a recruiter, and she called several of her clients/vendors (me being one of them).
I can tell you from first-hand experience, I'm sure she had over 80 qualified resumes on her desk by the end of the day (that was Friday). Talked to her this morning and she is now hiring an temp HR person (that I referred to her), so I assume she's not having any trouble. LOL!
I'm not clear why this would not make sense?
Must be a really bottom barrel job then.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 02:14:03 PM
"Income disparity" is a term dreamed up by university eggheads and political idealists who have never created a job in their entire life. They live in a theoretical world with little basis in reality. When a government moves to raise taxes and claim more of the rewards of that productivity under the guise of re-apportioning wealth, leveling the playing field, or income redistribution it's punitive and the government is yet again trying to determine what each person should be allowed to earn. As a libertarian thinker, this in itself is the major issue I have with a tax increase. It's authoritarianism. Understanding that our government has needs and they have to be paid for is a whole other issue, but that's not the reason stated in wanting to let these cuts expire. Saying we need to pay down the debt has been a secondary and more recent purpose stated in needing to let the cuts expire.
The biggest problem you have now economically is with lower demand, companies and individuals aren't doing what's been done in the past: getting ahead on expansion and improvements while it's cheaper to do so. If the majority of millionaires and CEO's see the current government as anti-business, these people simply will continue to sit on piles of cash. Especially if they think increased productivity and output with their money will result in them paying higher taxes on it than they will pay with passive investment or simply doing nothing more than camping out in treasury bills.
And why do we have lower demand? Because there are fewer people to buy things!
And no, income inequality is not some magical thing dreamed up by academics. In 1950, the average CEO was paid somewhere around 4.5 times the average salary of the rest of the workers in the business. Today, it's closer to 50 times. (those are approximate recollections from memory, I don't have the time to look up the actual figures right now) It's not about class, it's about greed in certain segments of society. The self-same greed that leads to companies focusing on this quarter instead of next year or three years from now. The same sort of BS that ran GM into the ground and left us with the banks and AIG teetering on the brink and/or falling over it.
Let's put it this way. Say you sell things. Say you do really well at it. So well, that you amass half the wealth of the country. With what shall the rest of us buy your things? To whom will you sell? The rest of the world, who is by and large even worse off than we are? That's why income inequality matters. Not necessarily because of fairness or anything like that, but because it harms the economy as a whole. In this case, it just so happens that fairness and economic sense happen to intersect.
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 12:43:35 PM
Anecdotal: in our sales office, we're down one of our junior members. It's still an important slot, and we're starting to see the lack of that position show up in our revenue. We've been without it for a couple of months now, and while it's been posted and we've received a lot of resumes, my direct boss has limited his search to 1) people who had prior hotel sales experience or 2) people who are currently employed in hotel sales and can be stolen away. So he's not looking at hiring, say, a laid off sales coordinator from HSBC who might have "sales" experience but not in hotels. Even though this is a junior position we're hiring for, he's much more interested in hiring a person who is currently hired and can be stolen, probably for more money than someone who might be unemployed and have similar skills but not exact matches and be hired for relatively cheap.
This has been an emblematic example for me as to what the structurally unemployed are facing out there. Not just a job market with not enough open slots, but a job market where, even if the slots were open, you're not a valued enough worker to fill them.
Exactly what I was saying about this being an employer's market. If someone is working for a competitor and has been there for awhile, they are most likely a good employee. You do two things here: a) you save the money on training and time for a learning curve of training someone into a new industry they know little or nothing about and b) this person represents less of a risk of being a lazy employee. There's also a "c)": they can simply leave the job open and expect more output from you and others in the sales office which will increase profit at least temporarilly if bookings can be kept the same. Generally it's counter-intuitive to let sales people go and understaff a sales department, except when overall demand is down then it becomes prudent.
Quote from: swake on December 06, 2010, 02:15:34 PM
Must be a really bottom barrel job then.
I'm sure it's below you.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 02:33:31 PM
Exactly what I was saying about this being an employer's market. If someone is working for a competitor and has been there for awhile, they are most likely a good employee. You do two things here: a) you save the money on training and time for a learning curve of training someone into a new industry they know little or nothing about and b) this person represents less of a risk of being a lazy employee. There's also a "c)": they can simply leave the job open and expect more output from you and others in the sales office which will increase profit at least temporarilly if bookings can be kept the same. Generally it's counter-intuitive to let sales people go and understaff a sales department, except when overall demand is down then it becomes prudent.
There's no doubt it's an employers' market, and they have all the leverage when hiring. I've come to understand, however, that what makes you employable right now in history is chiefly that you've been recently or are currently employed. Everything else flows from there.
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 03:39:58 PM
There's no doubt it's an employers' market, and they have all the leverage when hiring. I've come to understand, however, that what makes you employable right now in history is chiefly that you've been recently or are currently employed. Everything else flows from there.
You can usually tell when we are nearing full employment: the idiots who were previously unemployable have replaced those who were fairly smart at the drive through windows as those people catted up to a better job ;)
Quote from: we vs us on December 06, 2010, 03:39:58 PM
There's no doubt it's an employers' market, and they have all the leverage when hiring. I've come to understand, however, that what makes you employable right now in history is chiefly that you've been recently or are currently employed. Everything else flows from there.
Yet another reason why we should make people work part time mowing parks or whatever else we need to have done but lack the budget for after their initial benefits are up. If a person is presently completely jobless, you can't really be sure that they show up on time or shower regularly or whatever. Short-sighted and sad but that's reality. Apparently it worked pretty well in Argentina some years back.
I suppose that was part of the motivation behind the tax credit for new employees..enticing the employer into taking the risk by temporarily subsidizing the position.
Quote from: nathanm on December 06, 2010, 03:58:25 PM
Yet another reason why we should make people work part time mowing parks or whatever else we need to have done but lack the budget for after their initial benefits are up. If a person is presently completely jobless, you can't really be sure that they show up on time or shower regularly or whatever. Short-sighted and sad but that's reality. Apparently it worked pretty well in Argentina some years back.
I suppose that was part of the motivation behind the tax credit for new employees..enticing the employer into taking the risk by temporarily subsidizing the position.
Have you gotten a prescription for Republicontin or begun drinking the Murdochian Kool-Aid?
I definitely think the gov't could be getting some benefit out of the unemployed as long as they are on extended U/E. If it weren't for the cost and hassle involved, I'd advocate for regular piss screening too.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 04:24:36 PM
Have you gotten a prescription for Republicontin or begun drinking the Murdochian Kool-Aid?
I definitely think the gov't could be getting some benefit out of the unemployed as long as they are on extended U/E. If it weren't for the cost and hassle involved, I'd advocate for regular piss screening too.
I've been saying that for months now.
Piss testing goes too far says Mr. Hyde, my libertarian alter-ego. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2010, 04:24:36 PM
Have you gotten a prescription for Republicontin or begun drinking the Murdochian Kool-Aid?
I definitely think the gov't could be getting some benefit out of the unemployed as long as they are on extended U/E. If it weren't for the cost and hassle involved, I'd advocate for regular piss screening too.
How about, if you spend the whole 99+ weeks on unemployment you get the choice of additional weeks becoming loans against your future pay, or a kidney.
Think of all of the people awaiting transplants that we could help.
Joking.
Looks like Obama and the repubs reached a deal extending all the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/6/926200/-President-Obama-announces-deal-to-continue-Bush-tax-policy
Read the comments...heads appear to be exploding on the left.
Edited: Here's HuffPo's coverage. The comments there are even funnier than at Kos.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/obama-tax-cut-compromise_n_792776.html
Is it wrong for me to laugh at the unhinged left?
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2010, 06:16:43 PM
Is it wrong for me to laugh at the unhinged left?
No. I sometimes have the urge. Usually, though, I just shake my head in disbelief.
That's some seriously rabid, uninformed smile right there
Something to laugh about:
My rabid ObamaMamma (that's what one of her bumper stickers said) client told me today that she wants President Obama IMPEACHED!
You keep using that word. . .I do not think it means what you think it means. ..... Inigo Montoya
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz37M6XLL6dwA-TTk3xLTudi_Y2EGjnlN1Gm8CyXWXl2oxezpMKQ)
Quote from: Gaspar on December 07, 2010, 04:23:35 PM
My rabid ObamaMamma (that's what one of her bumper stickers said) client told me today that she wants President Obama IMPEACHED!
You keep using that word. . .I do not think it means what you think it means. ..... Inigo Montoya
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRz37M6XLL6dwA-TTk3xLTudi_Y2EGjnlN1Gm8CyXWXl2oxezpMKQ)
Separated at birth from Sam Shepard?
I've seen the "impeached" word floating lately. That's another signal for me to quit listening when someone starts up with the "I" word with an elected official.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 07, 2010, 04:32:43 PM
That's another signal for me to quit listening when someone starts up with the "I" word with an elected official.
Funny, my ears perk right up when I hear someone wish Dewey could be impeached. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on December 07, 2010, 05:51:12 PM
Funny, my ears perk right up when I hear someone wish Dewey could be impeached. ;)
Dewey's so smart he probably thinks that means having a fuzzy orange pitted fruit shoved...wait, never mind.
Quote from: Hoss on December 07, 2010, 06:16:41 PM
Dewey's so smart he probably thinks that means having a fuzzy orange pitted fruit shoved...wait, never mind.
Oh love, find me a defibrilator!
I just got the chance to watch yesterday's press conference. Wow!
It's sad but that was historical, and this will certainly be his most remembered moment.
"It's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed."
Weak, angry, frail, lost, and nervous. Everything but presidential. If he actually felt this was a moment to throw himself on the sword he should have done it WITH his party and in a bipartisan manner rather than throwing all fellow Democrats under the bus.
I don't agree with what the Democrats were, and still are, prepared to do, but I don't think I've ever seen a president provide such a provocative explanation for his actions, regarding the other party as "hostage-takers", and thereby showing his party as incompetent, and incapable of reasonable compromise.
It may have been an unfortunate un-teleprompted moment, but I believe it is the very moment he lost any chance of re-election in 2012.
It's an accurate statement, whether you think it's "presidential" or not.
I'm pretty sure a substantial portion of the electorate would view the Republicans behavior as hostage taking.
Obama was able to at least demonstrate that he understands that Republicans aren't trying to be honest brokers. This was actually in question; it's not been clear up till now (IMO) that he knew he couldn't trust them to govern anything more than their own self-interest. Using the all the hostage taker imagery at least means he's been paying attention.
In fact, as TPM put it, this was the moment when he finally put to rest all the questions about what kind of president he'd be. Which is to say, he's now resolutely in the "pragmatic" camp, rather than the "left wing ideologue" camp. The question is, in an atmosphere of hyperpartisanship, is it actually useful to be the guy who mediates the two sides? Aside from being the guy that the ideologues hate, is it actually possible to get a useful deal when both of the sides are so far apart on policy? Is any deal that the Guy in the Middle can get compromised from the start?
Looking at what Obama got for Healthcare -- which was weak sauce compared to what he could've gotten -- and rolling that together with this tax cut deal -- which is also weak sauce compared to what he could've gotten, I've started to wonder whether the role he wants for himself is actually possible. Contrast him with the Bush II admin, which was very partisan -- and effective -- I'm starting to wonder if compromise is actually something we as a society value any more.
This just in: Apparently tax cuts for the wealthy are helpful for economic growth, per our President.
And as you and others have pointed out so many times - he, too, is wrong.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2010, 12:39:22 PM
And as you and others have pointed out so many times - he, too, is wrong.
How long did you run the world's largest economy that has made you such an expert on these matters?
(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk83/kenjilandicho/fart.jpg)
I thought so
I read and learn from history.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2010, 01:02:48 PM
I read and learn from history.
A lot depends on whose spin of it you read.
That is also why I listen so much to Fox. It tends to even things out.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 08, 2010, 08:01:53 PM
That is also why I listen so much to Fox. It tends to even things out.
Careful, they will eventually get you to drink the Murdochian Kool Aid and take the Republicontin.
Believe it or not, I happen to agree with a lot of the basics they start with. The problem is when they leap to the next illogical conclusion. Start with a kernel of truth, then expand and espouse into the point of interest, which when taken on its own is patently and obviously ridiculous. Read 1984.
Like the idea the infinite tax cuts will provide infinite economic activity. Regardless of the reality of the last 70+ years.
50 Dems I gather are in favor of tax hikes on the poor.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/house-dems-voting-no/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider
Democrats--the party of "no" on tax cuts for the poor.
Well, since the bottom 50% of incomes in the country never pay taxes anyway (according to the Murdochian Kool-Aid machine), then it shouldn't hurt them at all, should it?
Oh, wait...that's just another one of their lies. The poor pay disproportionately much higher taxes than the rich. Whew! I thought for a second there we had all wakened in Bizarro World! Oh, wait...again... we did!! The strange new world where the richest get two years of massive tax breaks while the poorest get 13 months of additional unemployment!
Unless of course, the Republicontin get their way and the unemployment is converted into a "loan", as they are proposing. Gee, I wonder who would reap (rape?) the benefit of that? Maybe big banks who would "administer" the program for us?
Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2010, 05:05:50 PM
50 Dems I gather are in favor of tax hikes on the poor.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/house-dems-voting-no/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider
Democrats--the party of "no" on tax cuts for the poor.
You made me smile. Funny stuff.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Well, since the bottom 50% of incomes in the country never pay taxes anyway (according to the Murdochian Kool-Aid machine), then it shouldn't hurt them at all, should it?
Oh, wait...that's just another one of their lies. The poor pay disproportionately much higher taxes than the rich. Whew! I thought for a second there we had all wakened in Bizarro World! Oh, wait...again... we did!! The strange new world where the richest get two years of massive tax breaks while the poorest get 13 months of additional unemployment!
Unless of course, the Republicontin get their way and the unemployment is converted into a "loan", as they are proposing. Gee, I wonder who would reap (rape?) the benefit of that? Maybe big banks who would "administer" the program for us?
Disproportionate to whom? Do I get more police protection or better streets or better protection from terrorists because I pay 30-50 times in taxes than many in this country? Tell me, why should I pay so much more to just live in this country?
Quote from: we vs us on December 09, 2010, 10:37:45 PM
You made me smile. Funny stuff.
I'm sure Mr. "law abiding illegals"! Riding the gravy train is pretty funny. Tell us, you are driving this wagon.
Guido,
If you think it is such an oppressive burden, and you don't like the way this country is going, then leave! Nobody forcing you to stay and endure such abuse as to contribute proportionately to the mess the RWRE has made of the economy! Making 300 to 500 times as much as most in the country but only paying 30 to 50 times the taxes. Sounds SO much like a bargain!!
America, Love it or Leave it!!
And the RWRE has benefited from the gravy train for a long, long time. And now that the debt and other financial problems have become nearly untenable, all we hear are the same old Neocon platitudes and plaintive bleats! "Leave us our tax cuts! We won't make jobs if you take that away from us!" Even though they haven't been creating jobs already WITH those cuts.
An open question;
So how much should someone pay who has benefited by this system SOOO much that they have the opportunity to earn 300 to 500 times the lowest paid amongst us?? And I still submit that NO ONE who makes 300 to 500 times the lowest paid is, first, making that much more a contribution proportionately nor second, is doing it on their own without a large amount of disproportionately low paid help from the "little people" of the company they are running.
Quote from: guido911 on December 09, 2010, 10:43:35 PM
Tell me, why should I pay so much more to just live in this country?
Because you can?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2010, 11:12:34 AM
Because you can?
It becomes the responsibility of the producer to support the moocher. -
Page 256 - "The Feeding and Care of Liberals"
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2010, 11:06:53 PM
America, Love it or Leave it!!
Some time ago, in another thread, I suggested that a liberal could Love it or Leave it and I got blasted.
Consider yourself blasted.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 10, 2010, 11:14:32 AM
It becomes the responsibility of the producer to support the moocher heironymouspasparagus.
fify.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 09, 2010, 11:06:53 PM
Guido,
If you think it is such an oppressive burden, and you don't like the way this country is going, then leave! Nobody forcing you to stay and endure such abuse as to contribute proportionately to the mess the RWRE has made of the economy! Making 300 to 500 times as much as most in the country but only paying 30 to 50 times the taxes. Sounds SO much like a bargain!!
America, Love it or Leave it!!
And the RWRE has benefited from the gravy train for a long, long time. And now that the debt and other financial problems have become nearly untenable, all we hear are the same old Neocon platitudes and plaintive bleats! "Leave us our tax cuts! We won't make jobs if you take that away from us!" Even though they haven't been creating jobs already WITH those cuts.
An open question;
So how much should someone pay who has benefited by this system SOOO much that they have the opportunity to earn 300 to 500 times the lowest paid amongst us?? And I still submit that NO ONE who makes 300 to 500 times the lowest paid is, first, making that much more a contribution proportionately nor second, is doing it on their own without a large amount of disproportionately low paid help from the "little people" of the company they are running.
You have officially attained "boring" status with that freakin stupid rant. Congrats. You did it before reaching the 1000 post mark!
(http://reason.com/assets/mc/jtaylor/boktaxdeal.jpg)
Bernie Sanders is filibustering the tax cut, and is in his 6th hour of speaking. You have to appreciate his old-fashioned approach. By actually filibustering.
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2010, 02:49:18 PM
Bernie Sanders is filibustering the tax cut, and is in his 6th hour of speaking. You have to appreciate his old-fashioned approach. By actually filibustering.
Heh. If he had an R after his name, the Democrats wouldn't make him stoop to that level.
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2010, 02:49:18 PM
Bernie Sanders is filibustering the tax cut, and is in his 6th hour of speaking. You have to appreciate his old-fashioned approach. By actually filibustering.
Another dem wanting to increase taxes on the poor.
Quote from: guido911 on December 10, 2010, 03:09:41 PM
Another dem wanting to increase taxes on the poor.
Actually, that's incorrect. Just for the record. Even though I know you know that.
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2010, 03:11:26 PM
Actually, that's incorrect. Just for the record. Even though I know you know that.
What goes around, comes around. I know you know that too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 10, 2010, 04:56:29 PM
What goes around, comes around. I know you know that too.
Sure, but . . . not exactly sure what that means in this context.
Quote from: we vs us on December 10, 2010, 05:17:46 PM
Sure, but . . . not exactly sure what that means in this context.
If you need it spelled out, PM me. I don't want to make you look really stupid in front of everyone.
Red,
That's probably the biggest reason I threw that in there. It is a stupid phrase when uttered by either side. And when people have to resort to that, they have already intellectually abdicated their position AND there responsibility to think.
All;
Kind of like the whole,
"You have officially attained "boring" status with that freakin stupid rant."
of another poster.
Can always count on a 'name call' rather than a reasoned response outside of the script.
Open question to all is still open.
With a little extra; in addition to all the other subsidies the really rich enjoy during their ongoing class warfare against the poor, why should a corporation be allowed to deduct these "500 times" paydays as a tax deduction? Just another BIG subsidy that Richey Rich's get paid for by the rest of us.
So let's see; the corporation gets to avoid taxes on $100 million. The recipient gets to avoid about 25% of the taxes on $100 million. Rather than double taxation (big non-existent complaint of the Richey Richest) there is a complete avoidance of something in the neighborhood of 25 million! (Ok, yes, that example does have to pay about $15 million, just to be fair.)
But if it were at my rates, and I suspect most of the people in Tulsa, the amount would be closer to $35 or 40 million. Plus state. But if I had that $100 million to start with, I probably could afford a little 'face time' with my legislators.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2010, 08:16:51 PM
With a little extra; in addition to all the other subsidies the really rich enjoy during their ongoing class warfare against the poor, why should a corporation be allowed to deduct these "500 times" paydays as a tax deduction? Just another BIG subsidy that Richey Rich's get paid for by the rest of us.
Are you saying that corporations should pay income tax on their gross receipts rather than net income?
I won't argue whether or not an executive is worth 500 times the salary/wages of the little guy. Maybe a few are but most are probably not.
Isn't that getting dangerously close to what the "Fair Tax" is pointing at?
Or a VAT system?
MY thoughts are that corporations should be the conduit for pass through of all taxes. They are already equipped with the bookkeeping resources to deal with that situation, either in house or from "hired guns". (I hate to deal with corporate return AND individual returns. No excuse for that nonsense.)
All taxes are paid by individuals, just some of them are currently funneled through the corporate path. Let all of it go through that path and get the government off the people's back! A corporation, by definition, is a tool for use by society to leverage our efforts for greater effect (See Peter Drucker), so why not use the tools we have and get some leverage??
And think of how the bureacracy needed to deal with a few million corporations would differ from the bureacracy needed to deal with those same corporations PLUS more than 100 million individuals!! It certainly would not need to be nearly as large, nor cost as much! Imagine an IRS that never had cause to deal with a private individual in any way, shape or form!
And the elimination of how many millions of wasted hours per year by the taxpayers of this country? What could you do with a couple dozen (couple hundred??) extra, currently wasted hours??
And all the Richey Rich's would get to keep their whole bucket of money! As would you! And me!
Except that everything will cost the equivalent of the taxes paid IN the cost of everything rather than being outside the cost.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2010, 09:23:36 PM
And all the Richey Rich's would get to keep their whole bucket of money! As would you! And me!
Except that everything will cost the equivalent of the taxes paid IN the cost of everything rather than being outside the cost.
It would be a windfall profit for states with sales tax. They would be charging sales tax on prices which already include taxes. I find it unlikely that sales tax rates would go down.
There would need to be mass exemptions for necessities or the shot heard 'round the world would be nothing compared to the cry of regressive tax structure.
I would need to really study the unintended consequences before endorsing a VAT.
I don't want a VAT. Embedding all taxes in the price paid is a slightly different twist.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on December 12, 2010, 10:05:08 PM
I don't want a VAT. Embedding all taxes in the price paid is a slightly different twist.
Taxes are already imbedded in the prices of things you buy now. A VAT or national sales tax like the fair tax is simply being transparent about it.
Tax vote just got the 60 votes. Now it's back to the house for more politics.