May Unemployment Rises to 9.1%

[LegendKiller]

From your own link-



In other words, Repubs succeeded in holding the economy hostage to continued tax cuts for their fatcat donor base...

Where are those "Job Creators", anyway, and why are they using their tax cut money to create jobs in China instead of in the US?

It's for our own good, obviously, I'm sure...

Trapped by his own trash...again.

Yeah, no kidding, I thought the country would be saved if we extended the cuts.

 

[Engineer]

From your own link-



In other words, Repubs succeeded in holding the economy hostage to continued tax cuts for their fatcat donor base...

Where are those "Job Creators", anyway, and why are they using their tax cut money to create jobs in China instead of in the US?

It's for our own good, obviously, I'm sure...

More on this...

The tax cuts’ two bills, in 2001 and 2003 – changed laws so that personal income tax rates were reduced, exemptions for the Alternative Minimum Tax increased, and dividend and capital gains taxes also cut.

Yet in the debate, it seems of no moment to either side whether the tax cuts were effective in achieving their goal of spurring business investment and making the US economy more competitive.

Our own examination of US non-residential investment indicates that the reduction in capital gains tax rates failed to spur US business investment and failed to improve US economic competitiveness.

The 2000s – that is, the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in US postwar history for real non-residential capital investment.

Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period, but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures.

 

[Engineer]

Here is problem

Squanderville versus Thriftville by Warren Buffet
2008 March 28

Warren Buffet
October 2003 FORTUNE

**SNIP**

This is exactly the problem. Of course, there are those stating that we don't need a producing economy and a service economy will be just fine. Sure thing there skippy....

 

[ProfJohn]

and since they have temporarily extended them, for the 2 years as was suggested, do you agree that they should expire to help with the deficit?

(Edit: Seems that you beat me to answering the first question above - with a condition).

Edit #2: Of course, the expiration of such taxes would be right after the election of next year. It will be in play as people scream that "they will raise your taxes" at the same time beating on the deficit drums.

Also interesting (but not surprising) that you suggest that SS and Medicare need to be cut to be saved while at the same time posting that SS tax needs to be repealed on the first 20% of income. Starve the beast?

The $20k exemption is suppose to be a short term exemption in order to stimulate the economy.

Instead of another $800 billion give away to Democrat lobbyists we give money back to all working Americans in hopes that it will help the economy.

Another form of stimulus that I would support would be very direct infrastructure improvements such as adding lanes to highways and building new bridges in areas like NYC or DC etc. But they should be projects that will show direct results and NOT pork type projects meant to gain votes from certain members.

 

[Engineer]

The 20% exemption is suppose to be a short term exemption in order to stimulate the economy.

We're already cutting nearly 1/3 of the employee portion of SS this year and people are complaining that SS is going broke. All the 20% will do is break it quicker when in reality, it needs to be shored up. Me thinks that is by design....

 

[ProfJohn]

The idea of "shoring up" SS is bogus.

There is nothing magical about SS funds other than they are raised differently than other taxes and there is nothing magical about SS spending other than they are set in stone.

Otherwise SS revenue and spending is no different than regular revenue and spending.

To say that cutting SS taxes on the first $20k of income will hurt SS is ignorant. There is no SS trust fund and there is no SS rainy day fund. All there is are a bunch of IOUs from one part of the government to the other.

The only thing that cutting SS taxes on the first 20% of income does is force the government to borrow a little more money today. Otherwise it has no realistic effect on SS.

 

[Jhhnn]

The 20% exemption is suppose to be a short term exemption in order to stimulate the economy.

I assume that you and your Repub handlers are offering Arizona Oceanfront, too...

Think PJ! Think! When was the last time Repubs allowed taxes to be raised or temporary cuts to expire?

 

[Engineer]

The only thing that cutting SS taxes on the first 20% of income does is force the government to borrow a little more money today. Otherwise it has no realistic effect on SS.

Then you have no problem with the little larger deficits then?

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW is is not the first 20% of income it is the first $20k of income.

You pay no SS taxes on your first $20k of income. You could offset this by raising the limit on SS taxes into the $150 to $200k range.

But I wouldn't do that until after the economy recovers.

aka we exempt the first $20k in income from SS taxes for two years and then we raise the income cap to help pay back what we lose in that time frame.

 

[Engineer]

BTW is is not the first 20% of income it is the first $20k of income.

You pay no SS taxes on your first $20k of income. You could offset this by raising the limit on SS taxes into the $150 to $200k range.

But I wouldn't do that until after the economy recovers.

aka we exempt the first $20k in income from SS taxes for two years and then we raise the income cap to help pay back what we lose in that time frame.

Hell, I think we should cut the first 20k now and raise the limit to $150k to $200k now. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any. Would help fix our "current deficit" in SS funds (which started last year).

Edit: Sorry, yes I remember you stating 20K but for some reason, I posted it as 20%. I remember yo posting the 20K though (I guess since 20K is close to the max SS cap of 20% of $106,000, that's what I was thinking).

 

[ProfJohn]

Then you have no problem with the little larger deficits then?

I'd rather have a deficit because we are allowing people to keep more of their money than a deficit because the government is spending too much.

We could offset it by across the board cuts in tons and tons of programs, including defense.

Or we could call it a stimulus and deal with it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Hell, I think we should cut the first 20k now and raise the limit to $150k to $200k now. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any. Would help fix our "current deficit" in SS funds (which started last year).

You can't raise the limit now because it would kill small business who would effectively see a 6% increase in their tax rates.


Unless we can exempt sole proprietors and only charge the evil corporations that money

 

[Jhhnn]

Hell, I think we should cut the first 20k now and raise the limit to $150k to $200k now. Wouldn't hurt my feelings any. Would help fix our "current deficit" in SS funds (which started last year).

Edit: Sorry, yes I remember you stating 20K but for some reason, I posted it as 20%. I remember yo posting the 20K though (I guess since 20K is close to the max SS cap of 20% of $106,000, that's what I was thinking).

Raising the cutoff limit would have a salutary effect on SS revenues, no doubt, but the squealing & raving from Repubs would be epic. Listening to their pundits, making $250/yr is just squeaking by, after all...

It'd probably be worth it just for that alone, even if Uncle Sam didn't need the money for everybody's Grandma...

 

[Matt1970]

look how dumb you are.

Ya, dumb enough to know that you can't be very creative with your money if you are taxed at 90%

 

[JSt0rm]

Ya, dumb enough to know that you can't be very creative with your money if you are taxed at 90%

I wouldn't expect you to be creative at anything.

 

[Zebo]

You guys do realize highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) had the highest marginal tax rates, 70 to 92 percent, right? Almost debt free too.

 

[Matt1970]

Trapped by his own trash...again.

Yeah, no kidding, I thought the country would be saved if we extended the cuts.

Hey, it saved or created 3,000,000 jobs. LOLOL

 

[JSt0rm]

Hey, it saved or created 3,000,000 jobs. LOLOL

Hey everybody, look at the mindless echo chamber

 

[Matt1970]

You guys do realize highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) had the highest marginal tax rates, 70 to 92 percent, right? Almost debt free too.

You mean at a 70 to 92% tax rate on the upper class for 40 years we didn't have surpluses coming out our ears???? We should have been paving the roads with gold with everyone living the high on the hog.

Maybe taxing the shit out of the rich doesn’t work….

 

[JSt0rm]

We should have been paving the roads with gold with everyone living the high on the hog

We built the super highway system that you drive on everyday you ungrateful ignorant.

 

[Zebo]

You mean at a 70 to 92% tax rate on the upper class for 40 years we didn't have surpluses coming out our ears???? We should have been paving the roads with gold with everyone living the high on the hog.

Maybe taxing the shit out of the rich doesn’t work….

We had to pay off a war and rebuild Europe/Japan.

What did happen is GDP increased 20 fold despite high tax rates.

It's only gone up 5 fold since with low tax rates, and 1/4 of GDP today is done on govt debt (Fed, state local)

 

[CycloWizard]

Not a single word of Wall Street's involvement. Interesting. granted, that was a gov't problem.

Anyway, I am always amazed at how ignornat peopel are of the past, present and future.

Wall Street did what it exists to do - work within the constraints of current government regulations to try to make as much money as it can. If they broke the law, they should absolutely be prosecuted for it. Since I don't see any cases against them, I can only assume that they operated within the legal framework given to them. This leaves us with no one to blame but those who created the legal framework in question: government.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

At least this isn't because more people lost there job than got a job.

That depends on how you look at it. Since our nation needs about 125,000-150,000 net new jobs each month merely to keep pace with population growth, you could view it as a loss of 71,000-96,000 jobs relative to population growth. If you view the jobs picture in terms of the percentage of working aged people who are employed, it would thus appear as a loss.

One thing these stats never tell us is how many middle class jobs were lost and how many low-paying jobs were created. For example, a loss of 50,000 middle class jobs balanced by a gain of 50,000 poverty-wage or part-time jobs might not appear to be a loss on paper, but it is in reality.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The GOP controlled Michigan is pulling the same thing on the State level here. Giving every dime we have in Michigan to big business to spur job growth. We all know that tax cuts don't create jobs, demand and having customers who can actually buy your product/service does.

The states are caught in a national race to the bottom where states compete against other states. Given that, what do you recommend that Michigan's government do?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Which is why getting our long-term spending under control is the most important thing in this country right now. It frustrates me to no end that everyone wants a balanced budget, but nobody wants an a change to their entitlements or to things they deem necessary like defense.

Actually, the most important thing is to reduce unemployment and to increase the percentage of jobs that are solid middle class jobs. Doing this would address the deficit problem by reducing the number of people who need federal government expenditures while increasing the amount of tax revenue.