Latest News on UI extensions

[msm859]

Interesting reading, though it still doesn't change the fact that the increase in gov't revenue was a result of economic growth, and not the cause of it.

So you don't believe that the increased tax rate caused the tax revenues to go up? Or are you saying that economic growth is independent of what the tax rates might be?

[rjmwx81]

So you don't believe that the increased tax rate caused the tax revenues to go up? Or are you saying that economic growth is independent of what the tax rates might be?

I'm saying that the rise in tax revenues was too large to be accounted for solely by the tax increase. A 5% increase in tax rate cannot account for a 10% increase in revenues. (Those aren't the actual figures, of course, I'm just using that as an example.)

[msm859]

I'm saying that the rise in tax revenues was too large to be accounted for solely by the tax increase. A 5% increase in tax rate cannot account for a 10% increase in revenues. (Those aren't the actual figures, of course, I'm just using that as an example.)

Ok I would agree with that AND that the tax "rates" under Clinton did NOT hurt business.
Thus, when you compare the 8 years with Clinton vs 8 years with Bush proves that supply side economics does not work! We should go back to the prior tax rates for everyone. Not to do so will add $4 Trillion Dollars to the debt!!! The ONLY conversation should be whether you TEMPORARILY extend them for everyone -- on everyone's first $250k of income, and if so for how long.

[rjmwx81]

Ok I would agree with that AND that the tax "rates" under Clinton did NOT hurt business.

Tax rates might not hurt business in a booming economy. It could be an entirely different story in a lingering recession where lack of available capital for new business growth has been one of the main problems. Pulling any additional capital out of the system (whether through banks not lending, or through increased taxes) would be far more detrimental now than it would have been in, say, 1997.

[msm859]

Tax rates might not hurt business in a booming economy. It could be an entirely different story in a lingering recession where lack of available capital for new business growth has been one of the main problems. Pulling any additional capital out of the system (whether through banks not lending, or through increased taxes) would be far more detrimental now than it would have been in, say, 1997.

And I would agree with that. However, "continuing" a tax rate for taxable income over 250k is not going to fix your stated problem. The higher up you go the less value the tax cut has on feeding the economy. You would be far better off collecting the extra @$70 billion/ year tax revenue and immediately injecting into the economy as opposed to "hoping" that millionaire will. I wouldn't have a problem with having specific tax credits for the people who are paying the extra tax that would offset the increase -- if it was directly going back into the American economy. Once the economy turns around that money needs to be used to balance the budget. Anyone arguing all the tax cuts should be made permanent is naive or doesn't care about the future of this country.

[WhatMoney]

Mitch (the Grinch) McConnell has a Holiday Greeting card for you long-term unemployed:

Republicans Send Thanksgiving Message to 2.4 Million Americans “We Don’t Care”
Washington, D.C. (Nov 18) – Congress has recessed for Thanksgiving this afternoon after Republican Representatives sent a clear message to nearly 400,000 unemployed American workers, no unemployment extension, Happy Thanksgiving.

Once again, the nations lower and middle class have been thrown under the bus by Republicans as 143 of those in the House voted against a fast track measure to provide unemployment extensions through the holiday season.

Regardless of the House failure to produce a stopgap bill, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell stated they would not support any unemployment measure, as the Republican Party does not consider unemployed, homeless Americans, an emergency.

http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/11/rep...-we-dont-care/

[tobee43]

Mitch (the Grinch) McConnell has a Holiday Greeting card for you long-term unemployed:

http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/11/rep...-we-dont-care/

sounds like check mate...and all the little pawns are now being trashed and thrown away....

good read, but sad read...can't wait until jan. it should prove interesting...let's see now...let's trade the tax for those earning 250k...and give them a
free ride and then will throw a penny or two to the middle class and poor...

[albacore44]

in the long run it will still cost the country, when those who lose their unemployment benefits have to convert to welfare

[tobee43]

in the long run it will still cost the country, when those who lose their unemployment benefits have to convert to welfare

that was my exact point in the other thread albacore...i mean which is it going to be....unemployment or welfare????

people will have no choice to apply for welfare because there is just no other alternative...

i really did like your idea about the re-training...however, as hub pointed out in that thread as well...some people just have years of experience and what are they do do?

it will extremely interesting in this time of our history to see how this plays out....right now the immediately affected 2.5 mentioned in the article whatmoney posted are just the tip of the iceberg, i believe.

[msm859]

sounds like check mate...and all the little pawns are now being trashed and thrown away....

good read, but sad read...can't wait until jan. it should prove interesting...let's see now...let's trade the tax for those earning 250k...and give them a
free ride and then will throw a penny or two to the middle class and poor...

Sadly, based on the Democrats performance to date they will trade pennies on the dollar i.e. the Republicans will give them an extension of unemployment for a few months if they get an extension of the tax cuts for years -- if not permanent. The Republicans may have "driven" us in this ditch, but the Dems are in the drivers seat on this issue. Don't negotiate with terrorists, let the Republicans block everything it is time for our own French Revolution.

[tobee43]

Sadly, based on the Democrats performance to date they will trade pennies on the dollar i.e. the Republicans will give them an extension of unemployment for a few months if they get an extension of the tax cuts for years -- if not permanent. The Republicans may have "driven" us in this ditch, but the Dems are in the drivers seat on this issue. Don't negotiate with terrorists, let the Republicans block everything it is time for our own French Revolution.

good and valid point..actually...do we really know of any other country and the people would not be on the streets yelling and screaming?....and that ditch is soooooo deep, we are lucky if we will ever climb out.

and, don't get the wrong idea..i have been all over this world and there is NO PLACE like the USA...it's just take care of OUR business and STOP taking care of everyone else!

[BobMango]

I'm constantly surprised that people seem to think it's the governments job to house, feed and clothe people. There was a day when personal responsibility was the norm and families took care of each other. I'm not blaming those out of work or calling them lazy so don't go there. Lots of blame to go around with both the private sector and the government. The fact of the matter is that whether it's pride or a sense of entitlement or what have you, people are unwilling to change their standard of living to fit their means. It's a lesson I learned by having to file bankruptcy. I had to take a job paying less than half my previous salary and relocate to another state. I moved from a 3,000 sq ft house on 5 acres to a 1,100 sq ft drafty, roach infested house in a rough part of town. I only had to do that for a year, but I did it. My kids didn't like it but they have a new appreciation for the relative value of money, possessions and family and friends. In the 30's my grandparents were migrant workers. The money they earned each day covered that day's expenses, no more. They didn't expect the government to pay for their groceries or provide housing. If they couldn't afford it they didn't get it.

I think there is a role for government to play in terms of a safety net, but the idea of a safety net is that it keeps you from hitting the ground, then you crawl out of the net and get back to performing, you don't stay in the net until someone pulls you out. I know a lot of folks on unemployment that are trying to maintain the same standard of living they had when they were working. Insane. You don't need a cell phone or cable TV or a $30K car when you're getting a few hundred a week for unemployment.

Adapt, adjust and overcome.

[tobee43]

I'm constantly surprised that people seem to think it's the governments job to house, feed and clothe people. There was a day when personal responsibility was the norm and families took care of each other. I'm not blaming those out of work or calling them lazy so don't go there. Lots of blame to go around with both the private sector and the government. The fact of the matter is that whether it's pride or a sense of entitlement or what have you, people are unwilling to change their standard of living to fit their means. It's a lesson I learned by having to file bankruptcy. I had to take a job paying less than half my previous salary and relocate to another state. I moved from a 3,000 sq ft house on 5 acres to a 1,100 sq ft drafty, roach infested house in a rough part of town. I only had to do that for a year, but I did it. My kids didn't like it but they have a new appreciation for the relative value of money, possessions and family and friends. In the 30's my grandparents were migrant workers. The money they earned each day covered that day's expenses, no more. They didn't expect the government to pay for their groceries or provide housing. If they couldn't afford it they didn't get it.

I think there is a role for government to play in terms of a safety net, but the idea of a safety net is that it keeps you from hitting the ground, then you crawl out of the net and get back to performing, you don't stay in the net until someone pulls you out. I know a lot of folks on unemployment that are trying to maintain the same standard of living they had when they were working. Insane. You don't need a cell phone or cable TV or a $30K car when you're getting a few hundred a week for unemployment.

Adapt, adjust and overcome.

bob, that is an excellent point and i absolutely respect everything you have pointed out........however, once again i ask where are the jobs for us???????........

we changed our life style prior to even filing bk......we don't eat dinner.....only lunch ...dinner is too expensive...we never charged any luxury on our charge cards...but did in fact charge over 200k on my medical bills when our insurance capped out that year and it was either charge or die. we never charged a dinner or a dress or purse, or drill, or vacation....we got ill and we both lost our jobs and apparently no one wants us between the ages of 50-70 years old.

i don't want a hand out.....we don't have cell phones...nor cable......nor a 30k car...i can tell you that.


we LOST our house after 33 years.....GONE in a blink.......we went from over 4k sq ft to less than half...we have done everything short of living on the street, which we were close to...a tent maybe should be next for people like us....


perfect example attempting to do a house chore in bad health.......i just ripped my meniscus in three different places attempting to ADJUST and overcome.....and while hopping around i stepped on a piece of glass with MY GOOD foot and have now stitches in the OTHER.......so i'm adapting.....the BEST i can.....we need help physically and keep PUSHING until there is nothing left to PUSH...what more can anyone ask of us???...(WHAT A WEEK it's been).....and i don't mind hopping over to walmart again to apply for a job........which we looked into this week...and the office told us they have over 1k applications on file and will shortly be destroying them....too many to keep.
upper and mid management level people with masters degrees and above....who have attempted to get employed from burger king to walmart??? i was told I WAS TOO OLD???

once again, i do not want any government hand outs...i just want what WE paid into our own unemployment insurance accounts...... WE are not the 99ers'....we paid in for 50 plus years and are just asking to have the balance of our accounts paid to us.

[justbroke]

Let me tell you as both a sole proprietor and a senior manager at a multi-billion dollar company, that tax rates affect us. They affect the amount of products and services our client will buy, because we must tax them on a state and federal level. The affect of the Clinton era tax period is that we had prosperity largely because it was a.) the cycle, and b.) pre-1999 rollover fears caused many businesses to expend a trillion dollars preparing for the worse. Then the first four years under Bush, the prosperity hiccuped for a moment after 9/11, but the housing market was the next "cycle" of boom-bust.

I'm no economist, but the best time to tax, is when you have the revenues to do so. As a taxing authority, you take the money and SAVE it. What happened from 2002-2007 was that the taxing authority (state, federal, local) took the money and SPENT IT on lavish things, increased salaries, and established programs that could only survive at that revenue level. Remember, a lot of the state and local tax revenues were from the housing market in 2002-2007. Municipalities and other taxing authorities just took the money and SPENT IT. (There are a notable few that SAVED the money rather than spend it.)

Now, here is where people diverge and here is my point... since I look at both sides. During Clinton you had moderate growth and the max tax rate was like 39% (don't quote me). Under Bush, the max tax rate was reduced to 36% (again dont qutoe me). The Bush concept was that since there was $X in revenue which covered $Y easily (the budget), then reduce the tax on the people by returning the "People's" money to them. However, in 2006 and 2007, the economy started to slow down and the revenue ($X) started to get close to $Y. What they hoped to happen was to keep the tax cuts so that the net result -- if business SPENT THE MONEY -- would be that it would actually be in the economy and taxed.

I'll tell you what happened in 2009 and 2010. Business STOPPED spending and hoarded their profits. Simple as that. If you don't have people working (some 14,800,000 people*), then you are losing billions in taxes annually. No two ways about that. Additionally, a very good portion of these jobs were financial services and professional service jobs that paid over $100K on average. That will hurt you trememdously as a taxing authority. You want to talk about trickle down economics? If the high paid people aren't working and making money, then they stop spending and get rid of their $1M homes... no longer paying property taxes and other personal income taxes... thus reducing the tax base.

Plain and simple, it is trickle down economics no matter how you slice it. It just depends how you trickle it down.

How to tax, when to tax, and how much to tax is complex math. No one is tremendously good at it. When the economy is red hot, tax revenues are high, and taxes are low... we tend to think that's good politics. However, most of it is pure luck. The economy was "tweaked" too much from 1992-2006 and now we see what happens when you play with it. At least, that's my personal view on the subject.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – OCTOBER 2010 (11/05/2010)

[tobee43]

Let me tell you as both a sole proprietor and a senior manager at a multi-billion dollar company, that tax rates affect us. They affect the amount of products and services our client will buy, because we must tax them on a state and federal level. The affect of the Clinton era tax period is that we had prosperity largely because it was a.) the cycle, and b.) pre-1999 rollover fears caused many businesses to expend a trillion dollars preparing for the worse. Then the first four years under Bush, the prosperity hiccuped for a moment after 9/11, but the housing market was the next "cycle" of boom-bust.

I'm no economist, but the best time to tax, is when you have the revenues to do so. As a taxing authority, you take the money and SAVE it. What happened from 2002-2007 was that the taxing authority (state, federal, local) took the money and SPENT IT on lavish things, increased salaries, and established programs that could only survive at that revenue level. Remember, a lot of the state and local tax revenues were from the housing market in 2002-2007. Municipalities and other taxing authorities just took the money and SPENT IT. (There are a notable few that SAVED the money rather than spend it.)

Now, here is where people diverge and here is my point... since I look at both sides. During Clinton you had moderate growth and the max tax rate was like 39% (don't quote me). Under Bush, the max tax rate was reduced to 36% (again dont qutoe me). The Bush concept was that since there was $X in revenue which covered $Y easily (the budget), then reduce the tax on the people by returning the "People's" money to them. However, in 2006 and 2007, the economy started to slow down and the revenue ($X) started to get close to $Y. What they hoped to happen was to keep the tax cuts so that the net result -- if business SPENT THE MONEY -- would be that it would actually be in the economy and taxed.

I'll tell you what happened in 2009 and 2010. Business STOPPED spending and hoarded their profits. Simple as that. If you don't have people working (some 14,800,000 people*), then you are losing billions in taxes annually. No two ways about that. Additionally, a very good portion of these jobs were financial services and professional service jobs that paid over $100K on average. That will hurt you trememdously as a taxing authority. You want to talk about trickle down economics? If the high paid people aren't working and making money, then they stop spending and get rid of their $1M homes... no longer paying property taxes and other personal income taxes... thus reducing the tax base.

Plain and simple, it is trickle down economics no matter how you slice it. It just depends how you trickle it down.

How to tax, when to tax, and how much to tax is complex math. No one is tremendously good at it. When the economy is red hot, tax revenues are high, and taxes are low... we tend to think that's good politics. However, most of it is pure luck. The economy was "tweaked" too much from 1992-2006 and now we see what happens when you play with it. At least, that's my personal view on the subject.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic - THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION – OCTOBER 2010 (11/05/2010)

jb...as usually your insight and perspective is so appreciated.

personally, and usually i do not like openingly discussing my past, or appreciate having to do so, however, after 20 years in the financial sector myself, prior to changing fields, i have never seen the likes of what is happening in this country today. my job was to foresee financial stability in the company's that i analyzed ; and to make certain they were solvent and staple enough for one of the most conservative banks in this country. i knew back then most was just puffing and it was a "free" for all.

none of us likes taxes, and while that is true, if we pay taxes for programs that benefit a specific population, which has historically been the case, why does one find it such a dilemma to help those who have been the "back" bone of this country for so many years.

i had no problem supporting that sector of the population that needed government assistance that need Medicaid or food stamps or welfare for that matter. so why is it so difficult to understand that charity begins at home.

they say a good president has "insight"....i have yet to see anyone other than jimmy carter in all my years have any......and he was considered as weak...

no one likes taxes...once again..we are in un chartered waters, history cannot repeat itself, as there has been no historical economical pattern that has thus far been experienced by this country or any other at this point.

i'm along for the ride...have food on the table and a roof over my head...i am one of the lucky ones.