For Those Who Want to REDUCE Unemployment, not win arguments

[Brutus]

Repeal Obamacare and cut the Federal Register in half and we'll have 5% growth as far as the eye can see.

exactly but better yet repeal BO care, allow health care competition, make unions illegal, pass the BBA and you'll have 10% growth as far as the eye can see,

 

[MaggieMae]

As soon as Obama leaves, confidence will return.

I see any confidence lasting a year, at most. The Republicans are even more infamous for making big promises that turn out to be all talk and no action.

Since most government action turns out to be counter-productive, are you sure that's a problem?
Repeal Obamacare and cut the Federal Register in half and we'll have 5% growth as far as the eye can see.

Sure.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I see any confidence lasting a year, at most. The Republicans are even more infamous for making big promises that turn out to be all talk and no action.

Since most government action turns out to be counter-productive, are you sure that's a problem?
Repeal Obamacare and cut the Federal Register in half and we'll have 5% growth as far as the eye can see.

Sure.

Keep adding regulations. We see how that's working for Obummer.
Was the summer of recovery in 2009 or 2010? LOL!

 

[MaggieMae]

. Jobs bills

a jobs bill produces temporary make work welfare bubble jobs. THe liberal housing bubble produced many jobs, but look whee it got us? GOt it??

.
and the bloated rich paying their fair share-

actually the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and only have 18% of the income. BOttom 50% pay nothing. GOt it??????/

Ohhhh, poor babies.

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

The peak in income inequality that occurred prior to the Great Recession mirrored a similar high just before the onset of the Great Depression. In 1928, the share of income going to the top decile of households reached 49.3 percent. In 2007, the wealthiest 10 percent accounted for 49.7 percent of total income, eclipsing the high reached before the Great Depression.

While policymakers helped to keep income inequality low in the decades after the Great Depression, Bush Administration policies, including tax policies that lowered the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, led to growing inequality that left the economy more vulnerable to a deep recession.

The JEC report also found:

In the past three decades, the share of income going to the wealthiest 10 percent of households has increased significantly, from 34.6 percent in 1980 to 48.2 percent in 2008.

Annual income for middle class Americans – those in the middle income quintile – increased by more than $6,700 during the Clinton Administration. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, this middle quintile saw their annual incomes fall by more than $2,600.

Americans across all five income quintiles saw income gains during the Clinton Administration, while, by contrast, incomes fell for each quintile during the Bush Administration.

The increase in marginal tax rates for the wealthiest one percent of households during the Clinton Administration did not lower these households’ income. Real income of the top 1 percent grew at an average annual rate of 10.3 percent during the Clinton years.
From 1948 to 2005, incomes for Americans in the 60th percentile grew at an average of 2.5 percent under Democratic Presidents, compared to an average growth rate of just 1.1 percent under Republicans.

If someone earning $50,000 a year was expected to pay a 35% tax rate (like the higher wage earners), he would be paying $17,500 in taxes, lowering his cash flow earnings to $32,500. Chump change for millionaires, but housing, food, health care and other life-sustaining necessities for a family.

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

 

[MaggieMae]

Since most government action turns out to be counter-productive, are you sure that's a problem?
Repeal Obamacare and cut the Federal Register in half and we'll have 5% growth as far as the eye can see.

Sure.

Keep adding regulations. We see how that's working for Obummer.
Was the summer of recovery in 2009 or 2010? LOL!

What regulations?

 

[whitehall]

This is not a thread for arguing which political party is correct, or for pointing out mistakes that any political commentator has made.

This is for serious discussion on reducing unemployment, for which progress has stagnated in the latest jobs report.


A previous thread suggested that companies pay people at a higher wage rate for working less, so they can hire more people to pick up the slack and reduce unemployment. This was criticized as being stupid because companies would not want to reduce their profits, despite having profits that are trillions of dollars higher than before the financial crisis: http:/krugman.blogs.nytimes。com/2011/07/02/net-lending-by-domestic-business/

Well, that's fine; if companies don't want to have an immediate drop in profits, the same thing can be done by giving full-time, permanent employees the option of working less at the same average wage they are now, and allowing companies to deduct part of the wage if they decide to continue working full time. The result is the same, people working less means more people with jobs, and wages will eventually rise back to where they were (and even higher) when companies have to raise wages to keep people from quitting for better jobs once the unemployment problem has been fixed.

Or full-time employees get a wage increase if they work less, but a wage decrease if they work full-time. If employees would prefer the first solution, and companies would prefer the second solution, this is the compromise that no one should be able to argue with.

So just an example:

Company A has three employees: Sara, Victor, and Khalifa, all of whom make $80,000 per year working 40 hours per week.

Inès is surviving on $12,000 per year from unemployment benefits.

Total work done: 120 hours per week. Cost to company: $240,000 per year. Cost to government: $12,000 per year.


**The law goes into effect**


Sara decides to continue working 40 hours per week, and her income goes down to $70,000 per year.

Victor and Khalifa decide to work just 30 hours per week, and their income goes down to $60,000 per year.

Inès is hired as a permanent employee but only for 20 hours per week, and makes $50,000 per year.

Total work done: 120 hours per week (no change). Cost to company: $240,000 per year (no change). Cost to government: $0 per year.


There is a more detailed explanation of why this works available at http:/pastebin。com/Q86Zhgs9 but if you have any comments, please post them here! If you want the President to address the unemployment problem now, instead of waiting years and years for new products to be developed that companies need to hire for, contact the White House to tell them your concerns here: http:/www。whitehouse。gov/contact/

Take a course in economics 101 mistaki. Wages don't have an impact on unemployment statistics. Corporations simply do not trust the Obamanites and democrats and they will not expand while a socialist is in the white house. Small businesses are paralyzed with federal regulations and the dreaded health care law that might cause them to fold. The economy is stagnant while Obama refered to the US Chamber of Commerce as a sinister tool of the GOP. Americans saw the president hire a communist who once led an arson and looting rampage to be on his green jobs board and guess what? There ain't no green jobs or any other jobs for that matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. Jobs bills

a jobs bill produces temporary make work welfare bubble jobs. THe liberal housing bubble produced many jobs, but look whee it got us? GOt it??





actually the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and only have 18% of the income. BOttom 50% pay nothing. GOt it??????/

Ohhhh, poor babies.

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

The peak in income inequality that occurred prior to the Great Recession mirrored a similar high just before the onset of the Great Depression. In 1928, the share of income going to the top decile of households reached 49.3 percent. In 2007, the wealthiest 10 percent accounted for 49.7 percent of total income, eclipsing the high reached before the Great Depression.

While policymakers helped to keep income inequality low in the decades after the Great Depression, Bush Administration policies, including tax policies that lowered the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, led to growing inequality that left the economy more vulnerable to a deep recession.

The JEC report also found:

In the past three decades, the share of income going to the wealthiest 10 percent of households has increased significantly, from 34.6 percent in 1980 to 48.2 percent in 2008.

Annual income for middle class Americans – those in the middle income quintile – increased by more than $6,700 during the Clinton Administration. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, this middle quintile saw their annual incomes fall by more than $2,600.

Americans across all five income quintiles saw income gains during the Clinton Administration, while, by contrast, incomes fell for each quintile during the Bush Administration.

The increase in marginal tax rates for the wealthiest one percent of households during the Clinton Administration did not lower these households’ income. Real income of the top 1 percent grew at an average annual rate of 10.3 percent during the Clinton years.
From 1948 to 2005, incomes for Americans in the 60th percentile grew at an average of 2.5 percent under Democratic Presidents, compared to an average growth rate of just 1.1 percent under Republicans.

If someone earning $50,000 a year was expected to pay a 35% tax rate (like the higher wage earners), he would be paying $17,500 in taxes, lowering his cash flow earnings to $32,500. Chump change for millionaires, but housing, food, health care and other life-sustaining necessities for a family.

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

The AMT doesn't allow someone to "have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure.

Keep adding regulations. We see how that's working for Obummer.
Was the summer of recovery in 2009 or 2010? LOL!

What regulations?

About.com: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

 

[Brutus]

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

 

[Brutus]

growing inequality that left the economy more vulnerable to a deep recession.

actually the current deep housing recession was caused by liberal regulation of the housing industry, not income inequality. See why we are positive about liberals??????

 

[MaggieMae]

a jobs bill produces temporary make work welfare bubble jobs. THe liberal housing bubble produced many jobs, but look whee it got us? GOt it??





actually the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and only have 18% of the income. BOttom 50% pay nothing. GOt it??????/

Ohhhh, poor babies.

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

The peak in income inequality that occurred prior to the Great Recession mirrored a similar high just before the onset of the Great Depression. In 1928, the share of income going to the top decile of households reached 49.3 percent. In 2007, the wealthiest 10 percent accounted for 49.7 percent of total income, eclipsing the high reached before the Great Depression.

While policymakers helped to keep income inequality low in the decades after the Great Depression, Bush Administration policies, including tax policies that lowered the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, led to growing inequality that left the economy more vulnerable to a deep recession.

The JEC report also found:

In the past three decades, the share of income going to the wealthiest 10 percent of households has increased significantly, from 34.6 percent in 1980 to 48.2 percent in 2008.

Annual income for middle class Americans – those in the middle income quintile – increased by more than $6,700 during the Clinton Administration. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, this middle quintile saw their annual incomes fall by more than $2,600.

Americans across all five income quintiles saw income gains during the Clinton Administration, while, by contrast, incomes fell for each quintile during the Bush Administration.

The increase in marginal tax rates for the wealthiest one percent of households during the Clinton Administration did not lower these households’ income. Real income of the top 1 percent grew at an average annual rate of 10.3 percent during the Clinton years.
From 1948 to 2005, incomes for Americans in the 60th percentile grew at an average of 2.5 percent under Democratic Presidents, compared to an average growth rate of just 1.1 percent under Republicans.

If someone earning $50,000 a year was expected to pay a 35% tax rate (like the higher wage earners), he would be paying $17,500 in taxes, lowering his cash flow earnings to $32,500. Chump change for millionaires, but housing, food, health care and other life-sustaining necessities for a family.

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

The AMT doesn't allow someone to "have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes".

Ya think?

Millionaires who owe no federal income tax - May. 9, 2011

A very small number of millionaires end up owing no federal income tax at all.
They're in good company, of course. Nearly half of all U.S. households, or 69 million, are estimated to have owed no federal income taxes for 2010. The vast majority of them, however, are low income.

But 18,000 were households taking in more than $500,000 -- and of those, 4,000 made more than $1 million.

How can it be that those with big income streams owed zip to Uncle Sam?

Read on to find out how. A little wrench in the system called the AMT isn't a deterrent.

 

[MaggieMae]

Keep adding regulations. We see how that's working for Obummer.
Was the summer of recovery in 2009 or 2010? LOL!

What regulations?

About.com: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

I should read the entire code? Surely you just. I'd like to know what NEW regulations have been put in place that have a serious effect on the average person's life. Answer that one.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

God you're clueless. You honestly think some CEO earning 300 times what his employees earn give a sweet shit about them? Or you, if you happen to be one of said employees?

Do the Rich Need the Rest of America? - The Wealth Report - WSJ

the wealthy increasingly earn their fortunes with overseas labor, selling to overseas consumers and managing financial transactions that have little to do with the rest of the U.S. “A member of the elite can make money from factories in China that sell to consumers in India, while relying entirely or almost entirely on immigrant servants at one of several homes around the country.”

He adds:

If the American rich increasingly do not depend for their wealth on American workers and American consumers or for their safety on American soldiers or police officers, then it is hardly surprising that so many of them should be so hostile to paying taxes to support the infrastructure and the social programs that help the majority of the American people. The rich don’t need the rest anymore.

Love Thy CEO: Report Finds CEOs Running Lay Off Agendas Receiving Highest Pay Packets | JobsJournal.com

This comes as a revelation at a time when U.S. Census data confirms that in 2009, U.S. suffered the largest number of people living below the poverty line as recorded in the last 51 years. With 43.6 million people living below the poverty line, and officially close to 15 million jobless (actual numbers including U6 would be way higher) it seems a cruel joke that CEOs ''laid off thousands while raking in millions.''
...
In contrast, the report finds, American workers, are earning less in terms of real pay (after adjusting for inflation) than what they did in 1970s. While in the 70s only top executives earned more than 30 times that of the average worker, in 2009, CEOs earned 263 times more in average than the American worker. That's your terribly-hurt, recession-struck, worker-loving American CEO.

The most noticeable point unearthed by the report is that CEOs who slashed the payrolls of their workers more ruthlessly than others and cut more jobs than other CEOs on the S&P 500 list, also took home 42% greater pay than the average CEO who took less aggressive stances on layoffs and pay cuts. The report found that CEOs of 50 companies, which had the highest numbers of layoffs (minimum 3000 jobs slashed between November 2008 and April 2010), actually took home far greater pay than their less ruthless counterparts. Apparently, corporate America rewards its own.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ohhhh, poor babies.

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee


If someone earning $50,000 a year was expected to pay a 35% tax rate (like the higher wage earners), he would be paying $17,500 in taxes, lowering his cash flow earnings to $32,500. Chump change for millionaires, but housing, food, health care and other life-sustaining necessities for a family.

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

The AMT doesn't allow someone to "have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes".

Ya think?

Millionaires who owe no federal income tax - May. 9, 2011

A very small number of millionaires end up owing no federal income tax at all.
They're in good company, of course. Nearly half of all U.S. households, or 69 million, are estimated to have owed no federal income taxes for 2010. The vast majority of them, however, are low income.

But 18,000 were households taking in more than $500,000 -- and of those, 4,000 made more than $1 million.

How can it be that those with big income streams owed zip to Uncle Sam?

Read on to find out how. A little wrench in the system called the AMT isn't a deterrent.

Thanks for the link.

"Williams offered a hypothetical example: A retired person with $10 million invested in municipal bonds paying 5% interest, or $500,000 a year.

"Because there is no limit on how much tax-exempt interest you can earn without having to pay taxes, she pays nothing to the federal government," he said.

Or it's possible that some of these tax filers have a large portfolio, and booked a lot of taxable gains in the recent run-up in stocks. But they were able to fully offset those gains with the many capital losses they realized during the financial crisis, which made even the most experienced investor want to take their marbles and go home."

I don't think it proved your point, but thanks for trying.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What regulations?

About.com: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

I should read the entire code? Surely you just. I'd like to know what NEW regulations have been put in place that have a serious effect on the average person's life. Answer that one.

Too many regulations to read?
I wonder if that might hinder growth?
You could compare the pages of regulations before Obama took office to the number now.
Of course then you'd have to subtract.
When you find the numbers, let me know if you need help with the math.

 

[MaggieMae]

The AMT doesn't allow someone to "have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes".

Ya think?

Millionaires who owe no federal income tax - May. 9, 2011

A very small number of millionaires end up owing no federal income tax at all.
They're in good company, of course. Nearly half of all U.S. households, or 69 million, are estimated to have owed no federal income taxes for 2010. The vast majority of them, however, are low income.

But 18,000 were households taking in more than $500,000 -- and of those, 4,000 made more than $1 million.

How can it be that those with big income streams owed zip to Uncle Sam?

Read on to find out how. A little wrench in the system called the AMT isn't a deterrent.

Thanks for the link.

"Williams offered a hypothetical example: A retired person with $10 million invested in municipal bonds paying 5% interest, or $500,000 a year.

"Because there is no limit on how much tax-exempt interest you can earn without having to pay taxes, she pays nothing to the federal government," he said.

Or it's possible that some of these tax filers have a large portfolio, and booked a lot of taxable gains in the recent run-up in stocks. But they were able to fully offset those gains with the many capital losses they realized during the financial crisis, which made even the most experienced investor want to take their marbles and go home."

I don't think it proved your point, but thanks for trying.

I thought it was checkmate, since you said "they aren't allowed." Yes, they are.

 

[MaggieMae]

About.com: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html

I should read the entire code? Surely you just. I'd like to know what NEW regulations have been put in place that have a serious effect on the average person's life. Answer that one.

Too many regulations to read?
I wonder if that might hinder growth?
You could compare the pages of regulations before Obama took office to the number now.
Of course then you'd have to subtract.
When you find the numbers, let me know if you need help with the math.

Translation: I don't know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ya think?

Millionaires who owe no federal income tax - May. 9, 2011


Read on to find out how. A little wrench in the system called the AMT isn't a deterrent.

Thanks for the link.

"Williams offered a hypothetical example: A retired person with $10 million invested in municipal bonds paying 5% interest, or $500,000 a year.

"Because there is no limit on how much tax-exempt interest you can earn without having to pay taxes, she pays nothing to the federal government," he said.

Or it's possible that some of these tax filers have a large portfolio, and booked a lot of taxable gains in the recent run-up in stocks. But they were able to fully offset those gains with the many capital losses they realized during the financial crisis, which made even the most experienced investor want to take their marbles and go home."

I don't think it proved your point, but thanks for trying.

I thought it was checkmate, since you said "they aren't allowed." Yes, they are.

Interest on munis isn't a write off.
And you can't write off capital losses against income (except for $3000 per year) only against capital gains.
So if you're going to claim victory because an evil rich guy had $500,000 in capital losses 2 years ago and capital gains of $500,000 last year and paid zero taxes, go right ahead. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I should read the entire code? Surely you just. I'd like to know what NEW regulations have been put in place that have a serious effect on the average person's life. Answer that one.

Too many regulations to read?
I wonder if that might hinder growth?
You could compare the pages of regulations before Obama took office to the number now.
Of course then you'd have to subtract.
When you find the numbers, let me know if you need help with the math.

Translation: I don't know.

I know you don't know, that's why I gave you the link where you could educate yourself.
Now go forth and learn something.

 

[Brutus]

It's also a given that the top 1% never actually PAY that rate; often they have enough writeoffs to pay nothing in taxes.

sadly for you, according to IRS top 1% pay 40% of all Federal taxes but only earn 18% of all income. More importantly they are our most productive citizens, stealing from them is suicidal. Only a liberal would think stealing capital from those who know how to employ it makes sense.

God you're clueless. You honestly think some CEO earning 300 times what his employees earn give a sweet shit about them? Or you, if you happen to be one of said employees?

if I said anything about caring I'll pay you $10,000. Bet???

also, you know little so all you do is cut and paste, but this is not a cut and paste forum, it is a discussion or debate forum. You need to study up so you can participate in a discussion forum. We could all cut and paste all day long . Think!! PLease