Republican Governor raises taxes to balance budget

[sangha]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | For Richer or for Poorer?

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie claimed that his proposed budget would “protect and care for the most vulnerable among us,” he apparently was referring to the state’s millionaires rather than its low-wage workers.

Despite the governor’s stated aversion to tax increases to help fill the state’s gaping shortfall, the budget plan he negotiated with leading lawmakers — which the full legislature will vote on next Monday — raises taxes on families with children earning under $48,000.

 

[my2¢]

Can not say I am too familiar with the Earned Income Tax Credit. Out here in Arizona the state sales tax was raised earlier this month, but at least they allowed us to vote on the increase.

 

[Oddball]

Somebody has to pay for the socialistic do-gooder welfare state, and states like New Jersey seem insistent upon running off wealthier people.

So, who is supposed to end up with the tab?

 

[sangha]

Somebody has to pay for the socialistic do-gooder welfare state, and states like New Jersey seem insistent upon running off wealthier people.

So, who is supposed to end up with the tab?

Umm, the new budget cuts taxes on the wealthy

 

[Oddball]

Can't wait until John Galt invites me to the gulch.

 

[Avatar4321]

You mean everyone will have to pay taxes? How horrible!

 

[sangha]

You mean everyone will have to pay taxes? How horrible!

Only about half the population pay income taxes. Not sure where you got the idea that everyone will have to pay taxes. Maybe it was the voices in your head

 

[JimH52]

Somebody has to pay for the socialistic do-gooder welfare state, and states like New Jersey seem insistent upon running off wealthier people.

So, who is supposed to end up with the tab?

Umm, the new budget cuts taxes on the wealthy

A page from Ronald Reagon's playbook...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | For Richer or for Poorer?

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie claimed that his proposed budget would “protect and care for the most vulnerable among us,” he apparently was referring to the state’s millionaires rather than its low-wage workers.

Despite the governor’s stated aversion to tax increases to help fill the state’s gaping shortfall, the budget plan he negotiated with leading lawmakers — which the full legislature will vote on next Monday — raises taxes on families with children earning under $48,000.

Oh this is another one of those "He hates poor people" threads. Why don't you just claim he hates puppy dogs & kittens too? Oh and he also wants to eat your babies. Talk about stale Socialist/Progressive talking points. The man is trying to rebuild a State completely destroyed by your Socialist/Progressive Democrats. Balancing the budget will be an incredible accomplishment if he gets it done. So give the guy a break.

 

[sangha]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | For Richer or for Poorer?

When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie claimed that his proposed budget would “protect and care for the most vulnerable among us,” he apparently was referring to the state’s millionaires rather than its low-wage workers.

Despite the governor’s stated aversion to tax increases to help fill the state’s gaping shortfall, the budget plan he negotiated with leading lawmakers — which the full legislature will vote on next Monday — raises taxes on families with children earning under $48,000.

Oh this is another one of those "He hates poor people" threads. Why don't you just claim he hates puppy dogs & kittens too? Oh and he also wants to eat your babies. Talk about stale Socialist/Progressive talking points. The man is trying to rebuild a State completely destroyed by your Socialist/Progressive Democrats. Balancing the budget will be an incredible accomplishment if he gets it done. So give the guy a break.

No, it's a "Republican raises taxes" threads. Can't you read?

Let us know when you have an argument. If I want a whiny rant, I'll tune to Beck

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | For Richer or for Poorer?

Oh this is another one of those "He hates poor people" threads. Why don't you just claim he hates puppy dogs & kittens too? Oh and he also wants to eat your babies. Talk about stale Socialist/Progressive talking points. The man is trying to rebuild a State completely destroyed by your Socialist/Progressive Democrats. Balancing the budget will be an incredible accomplishment if he gets it done. So give the guy a break.

No, it's a "Republican raises taxes" threads. Can't you read?

Let us know when you have an argument. If I want a whiny rant, I'll tune to Beck

Since when do you Socialist/Progressive Democrats have a problem with raising taxes? I would think you would be applauding this if true. You guys completely destroyed New Jersey yet you're whining about a guy trying to do the right thing and balance the budget? Seems pretty lame to me. But hey,please go on whining about him hating Poor people,Puppy dogs,Grand Mothers,and Kittens. The man is only trying to clean up your mess. Give him a chance for God's sake.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Will the Republican Governor now need to apologize to Rush Limbaugh. Violating R dogma usually results in a rebuke from Chairman Rush.

 

[sangha]

Oh this is another one of those "He hates poor people" threads. Why don't you just claim he hates puppy dogs & kittens too? Oh and he also wants to eat your babies. Talk about stale Socialist/Progressive talking points. The man is trying to rebuild a State completely destroyed by your Socialist/Progressive Democrats. Balancing the budget will be an incredible accomplishment if he gets it done. So give the guy a break.

No, it's a "Republican raises taxes" threads. Can't you read?

Let us know when you have an argument. If I want a whiny rant, I'll tune to Beck

Since when do you Socialist/Progressive Democrats have a problem with raising taxes?

They don't and neither do conserative Republicans, as my OP proves.

Too bad you can't admit to the lies of conservatives who falsely claim they're opposed to raising taxes, and then raise taxes while claiming they didn't raise taxes. Let me know when you have the balls to address the republican hypocrits

I would think you would be applauding this if true. You guys completely destroyed New Jersey yet you're whining about a guy trying to do the right thing and balance the budget? Seems pretty lame to me. But hey,please go on whining about him hating Poor people,Puppy dogs,Grand Mothers,and Kittens. The man is only trying to clean up your mess. Give him a chance for God's sake.

SO after whining about raising taxes, you are now arguing that he was right to raise taxes. No wonder you don't have the balls to condemn republican hypocrisy

 

[Mad Scientist]

He didn't raise taxes, he cut the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC gives a large tax rebate to those who didn't pay taxes and subsidizes poverty. I'm all for it being eliminated.

Show me again where he raised taxes?

 

[sangha]

He didn't raise taxes, he cut the Earned Income Tax Credit. EITC gives a large tax rebate to those who didn't pay taxes and subsidizes poverty. I'm all for it being eliminated.

Show me again where he raised taxes?

I already posted the article, and reducing the EITC raises the amount of tax revenues the govt collects

Try again

 

[Greenbeard]

EITC gives a large tax rebate to those who didn't pay taxes and subsidizes poverty. I'm all for it being eliminated.

The EITC is one of the most effective (and most bipartisan) anti-poverty programs in American history. It doesn't "subsidize poverty," it subsidizes employment, it subsidizes work--this is an anti-poverty strategy liberals and conservatives alike can (and historically did) support.

 

[Mad Scientist]

EITC gives a large tax rebate to those who didn't pay taxes and subsidizes poverty. I'm all for it being eliminated.

The EITC is one of the most effective (and most bipartisan) anti-poverty programs in American history. It doesn't "subsidize poverty," it subsidizes employment, it subsidizes work--this is an anti-poverty strategy liberals and conservatives alike can (and historically did) support.

You think I care that EITC is supported by both parties? Bad ideas are bad ideas no matter where they came from.

Anyway, high wage jobs are destroyed because the low wage ones are being subsidized by the government via EITC.

There is not much incentive for employers to raise wages when they can point to government transfer of wealth payments in the form of EITC. An employer could say; "I can't give you a raise but you qualify for EITC don't you? Well there you go!"

Wages falling? Buying power fading? No problem, every few years Government will raise the EITC level. Everyone is happy right? Not those who have to pay the taxes that support the EITC: The Middle Class. (That would be me by the way)

Why do you think that some employers are so happy to employ illegal aliens? They can pay them shit wages because they know the Government is gonna' subsidize them with EITC payments (among other benefits).

Oh you think Illegals don't qualify for EITC? Think again! In fact US Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was just on TV saying that illegals should get paid equally regardless of immigration status! Many illegals have a Tax Payer ID number where they lied and stated they are in the country legally by the way but that's a different thread entirely.

And when Obama signs Amnesty the workforce will be flooded with 30 million plus new workers. What do you that will do to wages? What effect do you think that will have on taxes to pay for EITC payments? That dik is gonna' go in your azz farther that's what.

Sorry, I realize this is sort of a rant but I think it is all tied together.

 

[Greenbeard]

There is not much incentive for employers to raise wages when they can point to government transfer of wealth payments in the form of EITC. An employer could say; "I can't give you a raise but you qualify for EITC don't you? Well there you go!"

That sounds like a model of wages that's completely detached from market forces and instead is reliant almost entirely on the personal relationship between employer and employee.

Why do you think that some employers are so happy to employ illegal aliens? They can pay them shit wages because they know the Government is gonna' subsidize them with EITC payments (among other benefits).

You're mixing up reported employment and unreported employment. An illegal immigrant receiving the EITC would be filing income taxes (using either a fraudulent Social Security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) with a W-2 obtained from the employer. Hiring an illegal immigrant to pay them sub-minimum wage money is usually done either by paying them under the table or perhaps sometimes by classifying them as 1099 contractors.

Notice that the argument you're presenting here makes no distinction between illegal immigrants and citizens (particularly since you're proceeding from the premise that the EITC makes no such distinction)--that would suggest right away that it's not a particularly good explanation of why illegals tend to get paid so little relative to other workers.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There is not much incentive for employers to raise wages when they can point to government transfer of wealth payments in the form of EITC. An employer could say; "I can't give you a raise but you qualify for EITC don't you? Well there you go!"

That sounds like a model of wages that's completely detached from market forces and instead is reliant almost entirely on the personal relationship between employer and employee.

Got news for ya', that's the way it's supposed to be. Don't ya' think businesses would have more money to pay employees if they paid less in taxes? Yes they would. Don't ya' think employees would demand higher wages if they knew businesses had more money? Yes they would.
(Yes, I know you Socialist/Communists here on USMB don't trust people or businesses, just governments but that's beside the point)

You're mixing up reported employment and unreported employment. An illegal immigrant receiving the EITC would be filing income taxes (using either a fraudulent Social Security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) with a W-2 obtained from the employer. Hiring an illegal immigrant to pay them sub-minimum wage money is usually done either by paying them under the table or perhaps sometimes by classifying them as 1099 contractors.

Correct! Illegals get forged documents all the time and very easily. And apparently you agree with the US Government subsidizing Illegal Alien labor to the detriment of US workers don't cha'?

Notice that the argument you're presenting here makes no distinction between illegal immigrants and citizens (particularly since you're proceeding from the premise that the EITC makes no such distinction)--that would suggest right away that it's not a particularly good explanation of why illegals tend to get paid so little relative to other workers.

Why do I need to make the distinction when both receive EITC payments?
Again, Illegal Aliens, through forged and stolen documents and identity theft gain employment here. Every year they file taxes with either a tax I.D. number or a forged or stolen SSN where they apply for and get EITC payments. Why would they demand a higher wage when they know they're gonna' get it all back in a tax return paid for by the stupid Gringos'?
Meanwhile, the US worker plays by the rules, pays his taxes and gets fukked. HARD! (sucker!)

So in summation:

Employers pay less in wages.
Illegals make more than they would back home.
The middle class pays the bill.

 

[Greenbeard]

Got news for ya', that's the way it's supposed to be. Don't ya' think businesses would have more money to pay employees if they paid less in taxes? Yes they would. Don't ya' think employees would demand higher wages if they knew businesses had more money? Yes they would. (Yes, I know you Socialist/Communists here on USMB don't trust people or businesses, just governments but that's beside the point)

That's an argument for unionization (since you seem to think low-wage workers have the market power to just ask for and be granted more money); otherwise to a first approximation wages will be set by the supply of and demand for labor (with the minimum wage serving as a floor). That doesn't have anything to do with trust, it's just a matter of being familiar with supply and demand.

Correct! Illegals get forged documents all the time and very easily. And apparently you agree with the US Government subsidizing Illegal Alien labor to the detriment of US workers don't cha'?

Where did I say I agree with it? I was pointing out that you're using an argument that says the EITC encourages off-the-books hiring of illegals, which is incoherent since receiving the EITC is contingent on filing with the IRS.

Why do I need to make the distinction when both receive EITC payments?

Because you're arguing that the EITC makes hiring illegals relatively more attractive than hiring citizens. If you want asymmetrical outcomes, you're going to have to introduce asymmetry into your argument at some point.