Log in

View Full Version : "" Emigrate Now ... Avoid The Rush""



Pages : 1 [2]

flickad
02-16-2010, 12:11 AM
Again, you're making things up based on your ideology. Federal taxes are at the lowest level they've been in over 70 years, except for a brief 4 year period. There are a number of states with low or no income tax. The price of many goods are lower than they've ever been. Families probably spend far less on food than they've spent historically (one of the reasons for our obesity problem), electronic consumer prices consistently fall, the price of clothing has probably also fallen, thanks to Walmart making low prices a top priority.

You don't know what is going to happen to wages in the future. Right now they're stagnant because of high unemployment. It doesn't mean it's always going to be like that. It's much more likely there will be labor shortages in the future, when large numbers of baby boomers start retiring.

Thanks for that post, eagle2. I feel discouraged today. It's good to hear an optimistic voice vis-a-vis employment.

Melonie
02-16-2010, 04:56 AM
Federal taxes are at the lowest level they've been in over 70 years, except for a brief 4 year period.

Not true of de-facto effective federal tax rates. While various tax credits do reduce the effective tax rates on Americans earning less than $50k per year, elimination of deductions via the AMT is increasing effective tax rates on middle class Americans. And with the 'rich', there are so many options for shielding income, for tax free income, for investments which produce tax credits etc. that a near total disconnect exists between official tax rates and effective tax rates.


The price of many goods are lower than they've ever been. Families probably spend far less on food than they've spent historically (one of the reasons for our obesity problem), electronic consumer prices consistently fall, the price of clothing has probably also fallen, thanks to Walmart making low prices a top priority.

Actually, this is because all of these products are increasingly being imported from Mexico / China / Vietnam using $2 an hour foreign labor to replace former $8 an hour US labor ... which in turn eliminates low skill jobs ( and the hope of future low skill jobs ) in the US. Yes bargains exists right now due to the US dollar's exchange rate value versus the Yuan or Peso. But as the US gov't continues to print money out of nowhere that exchange rate will deteriorate and the US dollar denominated prices for these items will increase. And of course you did not mention global commodity prices for energy, commodity food, commodity raw materials etc. which are rising in terms of US dollar denominated prices already.



It's much more likely there will be labor shortages in the future, when large numbers of baby boomers start retiring

IF the baby boomers are ever able to retire in the face of an already cash broke Social Security system, rising taxes and perpetually low interest rates !

Eric Stoner
02-16-2010, 01:02 PM
Thank you Melonie ! Talk about "making things up" based on ideology.

Eagle - Have you looked at how many workers there will be to support each retiree on Social Security in just ten years ? Do you know how many workers support each retiree now ? (Psst. It's 3.3 workers now and by 2025 it will be less than 3.)
Is that YOUR solution to the Social Security shortfall ? More immigration ? You wouldn't be alone in supporting that proposal. Do you know how many immigrants we'd need ? Just to be clear, we're talking about LEGAL immigrants with good paying jobs dutifully paying their Payroll taxes. Why would these foreign, middle class folks want to move here ? Where are the jobs for them ? Where are the tax cuts to promote new businesses hiring and existing businesses expanding ?

You're also right about the relative costs of food and many consumer purchases. You're forgetting the following :
1. The enormous increases in state and local taxes. For instance, N.J. started its income tax in 1976 and the top rate was 2.5% Now it is 10.75%. California and N.Y. have seen similar climbs. Funny how when N.J. had no income tax and no sales tax it never had any problem balancing its budget. The Federal Payroll Tax paid on GROSS salary is now 12.4%.
2. Medical costs have increased.
3. Utilities have increased. Even if higher fuel costs are factored in. I use less water every year and pay MORE for it.
4. Energy costs have gone up.
5. Tuition has gone up. At both private and parochial schools and public and private universities.
6. Insurance costs have gone up for cars and homes.

Families are living more and more on two incomes. Often owning at least two cars.
For over a decade, many were living beyond their means on credit. With or without home equity loans used for living expenses. What reason do you see for Americans to stop paying down on debt and start merrily consuming again ?

Melonie
02-16-2010, 02:07 PM
^^^ yup, and in regard to tax increases you didn't mention increasing local property taxes, increasing local school taxes ( or their imputed effect re increased rents ), increased sales taxes, and the incredible array of new or increased 'stealth' taxes on electric bills, cell phone bills, ethanol blend gasoline, hell even non-diet soda !

On a different tack, for a fact the average US consumer spent 6% more money than they actually earned over the past decade. The 6% of additional 'earnings' actually came in the form of deeper debt ... cash out mortgage refinancings, rising credit card balances, 'rolled over' old car loan balances into new larger longer term car loans etc. ALL of this has come to a screeching halt over the past 18 months ... and if anything huge pressure exists to pay down these loan balances. Thus at best the US consumer has 6% less money available for consumption ( with loan balances remaining neutral), more like 10%+ with loan paydowns ON TOP OF the effects of rising state and local taxes. And of course this doesn't count the definite de-facto effective federal income tax rate increases that will appear either this year via the AMT or next year via the expiration of the GWB tax cuts, which will bite average middle class Americans for somewhere around an additional 3-5% of their gross incomes on top of the increases in state / local / 'stealth' taxes. And the spectre of a Medicare / Social Security tax rate increase in 2011 isn't totally off the table either given the fact that both have now turned cash flow negative.

As to rising US dollar denominated prices, at present there is a 'profit squeeze' being exerted on US businesses that process raw materials into finished products. The US dollar denominated prices of raw commodities has already increased, but the US dollar denominated prices of finished products have not followed suit. This results in lower profitability for those US businesses, leaving them with less money to reinvest / expand / give pay raises to employees. For a specific example, record high prices for sugar are killing baked goods and soft drink companies right now. Eventually retail prices will have to be increased to cover these higher cost of the raw materials / ingredients, or the US businesses will fold, or these businesses will stop domestic production in favor of $2 an hour labor cost imports offsetting their rising cost of raw materials / ingredients.

Back on topic, for middle class Americans who lack the $50k-$100k of investable money to take advantage of legal tax preferred investments like muni bonds or green energy partnerships, about the only option available to avoid ever increasing taxation is to 'vote with their feet'. As already documented in states like California and New Jersey versus Texas and Florida, there is already some incentive to relocate based on ~ 6%-8% -10% relative state and local tax rate differentials alone. However, as the federal income tax rates, Social Security / medicare tax rates etc. increase, a simple move from US state to US state will not reduce the impact. But becoming an ex-pat emigrant will not only result in a ~6-10% state tax rate savings but also a ~28-31-36% federal tax savings and a ~7-8% SSI / medicare tax savings ( on earned income) or a 15-20% capital gains tax savings ( on investment income ) ... at least on the first $91k of 'foreign' income.

eagle2
02-16-2010, 09:18 PM
Not true of de-facto effective federal tax rates. While various tax credits do reduce the effective tax rates on Americans earning less than $50k per year, elimination of deductions via the AMT is increasing effective tax rates on middle class Americans. And with the 'rich', there are so many options for shielding income, for tax free income, for investments which produce tax credits etc. that a near total disconnect exists between official tax rates and effective tax rates.

Only 3-4% of Americans pay the AMT, and of those who do, they still pay less taxes after Bush's tax cuts than they would have before.

You're the one who before said that more and more Americans aren't paying any federal income tax at all, and less than 50% are. Now you're saying the average Joe will be paying more in federal taxes. Which is it?




Actually, this is because all of these products are increasingly being imported from Mexico / China / Vietnam using $2 an hour foreign labor to replace former $8 an hour US labor ... which in turn eliminates low skill jobs ( and the hope of future low skill jobs ) in the US. Yes bargains exists right now due to the US dollar's exchange rate value versus the Yuan or Peso. But as the US gov't continues to print money out of nowhere that exchange rate will deteriorate and the US dollar denominated prices for these items will increase. And of course you did not mention global commodity prices for energy, commodity food, commodity raw materials etc. which are rising in terms of US dollar denominated prices already.

Cheap labor is only one factor. Advances in technology has significantly reduced the price of many products, such as computers and other consumer electronics. Advances in agriculture has significantly reduced the price of food.

Commodity prices are still much lower than their highs of a few years ago. The price of gasoline has dropped significantly. I recently paid $2.40 per gallon, which is the cheapest I've seen it in a long time.




IF the baby boomers are ever able to retire in the face of an already cash broke Social Security system, rising taxes and perpetually low interest rates !

Of course you're only going to see things from the most pessimistic point of view possible. Social Security is solvent until the late 2030's or early 2040's. By then I'm sure something will be done to fix it. Congress isn't going to allow one of the post popular federal programs to collapse.

eagle2
02-16-2010, 09:41 PM
Thank you Melonie ! Talk about "making things up" based on ideology.

Sorry Eric, what I said is true.



Eagle - Have you looked at how many workers there will be to support each retiree on Social Security in just ten years ? Do you know how many workers support each retiree now ? (Psst. It's 3.3 workers now and by 2025 it will be less than 3.)
Is that YOUR solution to the Social Security shortfall ? More immigration ? You wouldn't be alone in supporting that proposal. Do you know how many immigrants we'd need ? Just to be clear, we're talking about LEGAL immigrants with good paying jobs dutifully paying their Payroll taxes. Why would these foreign, middle class folks want to move here ? Where are the jobs for them ? Where are the tax cuts to promote new businesses hiring and existing businesses expanding ?

Social Security is solvent for another approximately 30 years. I never said anything about immigration. As for foreign middle class folks wanting to move here, I would bet there is a huge demand for H1B visas around the world.

There will probably be more than enough jobs for everyone who wants to work, once baby boomers start retiring in great numbers.

Tax cuts aren't the only means of growing the economy. Most years the economy will grow without doing anything.



You're also right about the relative costs of food and many consumer purchases. You're forgetting the following :

No, I said, "The price of many goods are lower than they've ever been". I didn't say the price of everything is lower than it's ever been. Some products/services have gone up in price, such as healthcare.



1. The enormous increases in state and local taxes. For instance, N.J. started its income tax in 1976 and the top rate was 2.5% Now it is 10.75%. California and N.Y. have seen similar climbs. Funny how when N.J. had no income tax and no sales tax it never had any problem balancing its budget. The Federal Payroll Tax paid on GROSS salary is now 12.4%.

State taxes vary from state to state. Some states' taxes are higher than others and some states have no income tax at all.



2. Medical costs have increased.

agreed



3. Utilities have increased. Even if higher fuel costs are factored in. I use less water every year and pay MORE for it.

That depends on where you live. My utility costs have been stable and I don't pay for water where I live.



4. Energy costs have gone up.

This depends on where you live. My costs haven't. My electric bills have been pretty stable. They've even gone done after I got a new refrigerator and air conditioner.



5. Tuition has gone up. At both private and parochial schools and public and private universities.

Agreed



6. Insurance costs have gone up for cars and homes.

This also probably depends on where you live. When my auto insurance company kept raising my rates, I started shopping around and I was able to get a lower rate from another company. I don't own a home, but my renter's insurance has been stable.



Families are living more and more on two incomes. Often owning at least two cars.
For over a decade, many were living beyond their means on credit. With or without home equity loans used for living expenses. What reason do you see for Americans to stop paying down on debt and start merrily consuming again ?

Because Americans will eventually have to replace the products they have, such as cars, televisions, etc.. Also, with the price of homes falling, Americans will be spending less money on mortgage payments.

Eric Stoner
02-17-2010, 08:09 AM
Only 3-4% of Americans pay the AMT, and of those who do, they still pay less taxes after Bush's tax cuts than they would have before.

You're the one who before said that more and more Americans aren't paying any federal income tax at all, and less than 50% are. Now you're saying the average Joe will be paying more in federal taxes. Which is it?



Cheap labor is only one factor. Advances in technology has significantly reduced the price of many products, such as computers and other consumer electronics. Advances in agriculture has significantly reduced the price of food.

Commodity prices are still much lower than their highs of a few years ago. The price of gasoline has dropped significantly. I recently paid $2.40 per gallon, which is the cheapest I've seen it in a long time.




Of course you're only going to see things from the most pessimistic point of view possible. Social Security is solvent until the late 2030's or early 2040's. By then I'm sure something will be done to fix it. Congress isn't going to allow one of the post popular federal programs to collapse.

I have to commend your tenacity in clinging to YOUR ideology regardless of the facts. When Bush's tax cuts expire next year, all Federal Income Taxpayers are going to pay more. Everyone is going to have higher withholding. The PAYROLL tax will still be 12.4% for EVERYBODY. Everybody who shops; buys gas; uses utilities and /or owns property pays taxes. Taxes which have been going UP for decades. Higher corporate taxes will be seen in higher prices for goods and services plus less investment and less hiring.

The expiration of Bush's tax cuts is already having a perverse effect on the economy. Those that can are taking profits and pushing income forward into this year so they won't be taxed on it at higher rates in 2011. A consensus is building among economists and investors that next year will be an economic train wreck. Even if Bush's tax cuts were renewed they would have little stimulative effect next year because of all the tax avoidance occurring now.

As for agricultural prices, you might want to check some recent crop reports. Bad weather is going to wreak havoc with the price of many basic foodstuffs.

Did you see what happened to oil prices yesterday ? You'll see it at the pump in a couple of weeks. If the dollar continues weakening, as it started doing yesterday, oil will go up again.

Social Security is already starting to run out of money. It is already paying out MORE than it takes in. The only way to save it is raise the Payroll Tax and cut benefits. Just how much do you think the American taxpayer can stand ? Do you have any idea how high Payroll taxes would have to go if benefits aren't cut and the retirement age is not raised ? They would have to at least double. Congress has already dithered for over a decade and refused to even look at the problem, let alone do anything about it.

Government workers already outnumber manufacturing workers 2 to 1. Those workers have to be paid and their pensions and health care have to be financed. A lot of "retirees" are NOT retiring. They can't afford to. Their 401K's took whopping hits and some were even wiped out. Like if they had stock in GM, Chrysler, Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns.

Melonie
02-17-2010, 02:51 PM
Social Security is solvent for another approximately 30 years.

Social Security is already starting to run out of money. It is already paying out MORE than it takes in. the only way to save it is raise the Payroll Tax and cut benefits.


The only way to technically claim that Social Security is still solvent is to myopically view the Social Security balance sheet in a vacuum. In point of fact, past surpluses in SSI tax revenues were NOT invested ... instead they were turned over to the US Treasury general fund and spent !!! What SSI shows on its books are 'special' US Treasury bonds given to SSI in exchange for their surplus SSI tax revenue dollars ... 'special' US Treasury bonds which like all other US Treasury bonds depend on the collection of sufficient amounts of future general fund tax revenues ( i.e. future income tax dollars in addition to future SSI tax dollars) to pay interest and eventually repay principal on these 'special' bonds. The 'special' nature of these bonds prevents SSI from cashing in these bonds in the world market ... and thus obtaining real cash from foreign investors to pay SSI benefits ( although the ability to pull off such an international sale, even if legally possible, is highly doubtful as well given recent US Treasury bond auction results ) as opposed to burdening 2010 US income tax payers to cover the shortfall.

Now that SSI's cash flow has turned negative, i.e. SSI is now paying out more dollars each monthy in SSI benefits than it receives in SSI tax revenues, for the very first time it will be necessary for SSI to lay claim to some portion of 2010 general fund tax revenues. Thus for the very first time, SSI benefit payments will be directly competing with medicaid payments, gov't worker paycheck payments, US military personnel payments, stimulus project subcontractor payments and every other category of gov't expenditure against an insufficiently large amount of general fund tax revenues. This in turn will force either additional money printing / additional US Treasury bond printing and sales, or a tax increase to provide additional general fund tax revenues, or a 'default' thus forcing SSI to reduce the size of SSI checks to match the amount of SSI tax revenues they are actually currently receiving. Given the world's negative reaction to recent US Treasury bond auctions, and given the voter clout of SSI recipients, the likely result is a combination of additional money printing plus an income tax rate increase.

No matter how this problem is eventually dealt with, every possible outcome provides a stronger reason to 'vote with your feet' to escape rising SSI tax rates and/or rising 'ordinary' income tax rates !

eagle2
02-17-2010, 09:20 PM
Where are Americans who have to work for a living going to go, where they can make anywhere near as much money as they do in the US?

Melonie
02-18-2010, 03:09 AM
Where are Americans who have to work for a living going to go, where they can make anywhere near as much money as they do in the US?

Well that's the entire point where low skill workers is concerned ... there isn't anywhere else to go. The global 'price' of low skill labor is on the order of US$ 2-3 dollars per hour. The mandated domestic 'price' of low skill labor is on the order of US $11 per hour between minimum wage plus mandated tax and benefit costs. Thus every transportable US low skill labor job will eventually BE transported somewhere else. So in the long term, absent wealth transfer subsidies, the standard of living of unskilled Americans will decline to match that of their global counterparts. Or in the long term, via the increased use of wealth transfer subsidies, an artificially high standard of living will still be provided for unskilled Americans ... but at the 'cost' of a declining standard of living for highly skilled Americans whose taxes continue to be increased to fund said wealth transfer subsidies.

But where highly skilled labor is concerned, there are international opportunities. Highly skilled jobs in 'undesireable' locations pay far better than the typical US pay rate. And even where 'desireable' locations are concerned, an international job at a near equal pay rate actually translates into a higher standard of living because effective tax rates are significantly lower. Keep in mind that for every manufacturing plant that disappears in America, a new manufacturing plant appears in Costa Rica or Brazil or Vietnam. Keep in mind that for every coal fired power plant that disappears in America, a new coal fired power plant appears in China or Chile or Serbia. And there are even instances of software houses disappearing in America to be replaced by new software houses in Ireland. Hell, even Hollywood movie making is slowly disappearing in America to be replaced by new movie productions in New Zealand or Canada or the Czech republic ! All of these require just as many highly skilled workers !

From a standpoint of simple logic, if America continues wealth transfer subsidies the standard of living of unskilled Americans will remain above that of the rest of the world. This will obviously present zero incentive for unskilled Americans to move anywhere else, and will continue to provide incentive for unskilled foreigners to immigrate to America. But as the cost of those wealth transfer subsidies continues to extract a higher and higher burden from highly skilled Americans and the companies they work for, those highly skilled Americans and their companies will see an ever strengthening motivation to expatriate.

The veiled point of the original post's author is that the American wealth transfer system will quickly break down if an insufficient number of highly skilled Americans and the companies they work for decide to exit the USA and take their tax revenues with them. This principle has already been proven on a smaller scale in California, New Jersey etc. Thus at some point the US gov't is likely to start enacting capital controls, 'exit' taxes etc. to try and prevent highly skilled Americans and their companies from leaving. In a totally pessimistic scenario this smacks of a second 'Berlin Wall' situation. In a more realistic scenario this leads to highly skilled Americans and their companies being 'trapped' economically ... i.e. they can still leave but they can't take their money or property with them if they do ! But if they stay, they will be subjected to ever increasing effective tax rates to the point of causing a significant decline in their standard of living.

~

loren
02-18-2010, 06:35 AM
I thought Obama and the democrats would do something to improve life for regular people... but they haven't. It's impossible to have a civilized society with out rules and regulations which protect the majority of people from fraud commited by politicians who help corporate criminals commit 'super grand larceny'. How come nobody is doing anything to punish the corporate criminals who destroyed this economy by commiting 'super grand larceny' in the name of deregulation?

Few people are even willing to speak up. One of those few people was on the Dylan Ratigan show recenty. He is trying to get credit card companies to be more ethical.
http://www.creditcardrevolt.com/Site_1/unite.html

Of course there was also Brooksley Born, who tried to warn us about the economic devastation that would be caused by derivatives trading by the too big to fail banks
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
(unfortunately she was silenced by the boys club... but she did win the JFK 2009 Profiles In Courage Award)


Nothing can change unless people start demanding that politicians and corporations become more ethical. We used to have usuary laws in this country which was a great 'regulation' because it protected people from being charged more than 10%. Loan sharking is immoral and it used to be illegal.

eagle2
02-20-2010, 12:54 AM
Well that's the entire point where low skill workers is concerned ... there isn't anywhere else to go. The global 'price' of low skill labor is on the order of US$ 2-3 dollars per hour. The mandated domestic 'price' of low skill labor is on the order of US $11 per hour between minimum wage plus mandated tax and benefit costs. Thus every transportable US low skill labor job will eventually BE transported somewhere else. So in the long term, absent wealth transfer subsidies, the standard of living of unskilled Americans will decline to match that of their global counterparts. Or in the long term, via the increased use of wealth transfer subsidies, an artificially high standard of living will still be provided for unskilled Americans ... but at the 'cost' of a declining standard of living for highly skilled Americans whose taxes continue to be increased to fund said wealth transfer subsidies.

As always, you're making things up based on your ideology. You have this mistaken idea that the only factor that matters to businesses is the cost of labor. There are many other factors for businesses in determining where they are going to locate production. Some businesses will relocate to where labor is cheaper. Others won't. In addition, other businesses will move to the US.

There are also limitations to how much we can import. Our ports are already operating at close to capacity.



But where highly skilled labor is concerned, there are international opportunities. Highly skilled jobs in 'undesireable' locations pay far better than the typical US pay rate. And even where 'desireable' locations are concerned, an international job at a near equal pay rate actually translates into a higher standard of living because effective tax rates are significantly lower.

Again you're making things up. I doubt very much that software engineers at Apple or Google can make anywhere near as much money somewhere else as they're making here. I doubt doctors and lawyers can make anywhere near as much money somewhere else as they do here.



Keep in mind that for every manufacturing plant that disappears in America, a new manufacturing plant appears in Costa Rica or Brazil or Vietnam. Keep in mind that for every coal fired power plant that disappears in America, a new coal fired power plant appears in China or Chile or Serbia. And there are even instances of software houses disappearing in America to be replaced by new software houses in Ireland. Hell, even Hollywood movie making is slowly disappearing in America to be replaced by new movie productions in New Zealand or Canada or the Czech republic ! All of these require just as many highly skilled workers !

Most of those manufacturing plants in Costa Rica or Brazil or Vietnam are run by people from those countries. The corporate jobs are still in the US. Your statement about coal-fired plants is completely baseless. When a coal fired plant in the US disappears, a gas, nuclear, wind, or solar power plant appears. The use of electricity increases most years. There have always been movies made overseas but most American movies are still filmed in the US.




From a standpoint of simple logic, if America continues wealth transfer subsidies the standard of living of unskilled Americans will remain above that of the rest of the world. This will obviously present zero incentive for unskilled Americans to move anywhere else, and will continue to provide incentive for unskilled foreigners to immigrate to America. But as the cost of those wealth transfer subsidies continues to extract a higher and higher burden from highly skilled Americans and the companies they work for, those highly skilled Americans and their companies will see an ever strengthening motivation to expatriate.

Again you're making things up. There is no major wealth transfer in the US. Programs for the poor only make up a small percentage of total GDP.



The veiled point of the original post's author is that the American wealth transfer system will quickly break down if an insufficient number of highly skilled Americans and the companies they work for decide to exit the USA and take their tax revenues with them. This principle has already been proven on a smaller scale in California, New Jersey etc. Thus at some point the US gov't is likely to start enacting capital controls, 'exit' taxes etc. to try and prevent highly skilled Americans and their companies from leaving. In a totally pessimistic scenario this smacks of a second 'Berlin Wall' situation. In a more realistic scenario this leads to highly skilled Americans and their companies being 'trapped' economically ... i.e. they can still leave but they can't take their money or property with them if they do ! But if they stay, they will be subjected to ever increasing effective tax rates to the point of causing a significant decline in their standard of living.

~
Again, you're making more stuff up. As I mentioned before, the number of wealthy people leaving California isn't much greater than the number of wealthy people moving into California. There is also a huge difference between moving from one state to another in the US, and moving to another country.

Melonie
02-20-2010, 04:24 PM
for seemingly the 100th time ...

"New study: Wealthy leaving New Jersey"

"Taxpayers Flee New York, Taxes Too High (Duh)"

and

(snip)"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period -- more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

California's loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state's population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S., according to state demographers."(snip)

^^^ if there is any other way to translate the above other than 'california taxpayers are leaving' and 'social welfare benefit consuming immigrants, legal and illegal, are taking their place', I'm definitely open to hearing it.



Your statement about coal-fired plants is completely baseless. When a coal fired plant in the US disappears, a gas, nuclear, wind, or solar power plant appears. The use of electricity increases most years.

In point of fact, coal fired power plants ARE shutting down ... because the environmental compliance cost investment required in order for them to renew their licenses is not economically viable. A comparatively tiny bit of new wind and solar power is coming online to replace the loss of generating capacity, but from a power grid standpoint wind and solar are unreliable power sources ( which require a spinning conventional power plant be online but unloaded in order to back them up when the wind stops blowing or a cloud bank floats by). While a bit of lip service has come out of Washington recently in regard to new nuclear power, in point of fact the one and only new nuclear power plant application ( Nine Mile 3 in upstate NY ) has now been withdrawn due to both lack of affordable funding ( after re-evaluation of project regulatory compliance costs and union labor construction costs ) and due to a lack of federal commitment ( i.e. refusal of the FERC to overrule local 'green' protester objections to the construction of a new power transmission line necessary to transport newly generated power to the NYC area where it is actually needed / priced high enough for the power plant to turn a net profit).

In the real world, US power grids have lost 'reliable' generating capacity due to the shutdown of coal fired power plants. And in the Northeast and West, arguably the only reason that the lights are still on is that former large electricity users i.e. energy intensive manufacturing plants have ceased operations and shifted their former US electric loads overseas ( along with jobs, tax revenues etc.), thus allowing a declining pool of generating capacity to still adequately service lower systemwide electricity demand levels. In the real world, the only significant new 'reliable' generating capacity coming online in America is natural gas fired - but which is also significantly more expensive to operate than coal or nuclear. But natural gas turbine power plants are the only option for new 'reliable' generating capacity that has both a comparatively low capital investment requirement as well as a comparatively low environmental litigation / compliance cost. And in the real world, with the exception of certain 'islands' of electricity users close to hydroelectric power or existing nuclear power, American electricity costs are going up at the same time that total system-wide electricity demand is going down !



There is no major wealth transfer in the US.

again your attempting to raise a very narrow point in hopes of obscuring the true state of affairs overall. The fact is that state and local gov'ts handle the bulk of wealth transfer dollars, with these welfare / medicaid / subsidized rent / subsidized utilities / other social programs comprise a significant dollar chunk of most states' budgets. But aside from state and local gov't spending their own tax revenues on wealth transfer programs, a significant portion of the total dollars that the states spend on wealth transfer programs actually originate with the federal gov't. But on the federal ledger this money given to the states is not listed as the wealth transfer spending that it really amounts to. Similarly, wealth transfer payments executed via the IRS, i.e. earned income tax credits, are similarly not listed as the wealth transfer spending that it really amounts to.

Or put another way, the gov't has deliberately fragmented social welfare / wealth transfer spending under a variety of different headings at the federal, state and local level. This was arguably a deliberate measure for the purpose of making an accurate accounting of total wealth transfer spending a de-facto impossibility.



~

Melonie
02-21-2010, 09:17 AM
As always, you're making things up based on your ideology

I really try to avoid mixing economic facts and ideology, but since you bring it up yet again ...

(snip)"Washington routinely redistributes income within American society. When Joe Taxpayer receives government benefits that exceed what he pays in taxes, the effect is what the Heritage Foundation calls a "distributional deficit." Joe's higher-earning fellow taxpayers must fill that deficit. "Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups." The very idea that human nature or any natural law would be allowed to control humans or nature nauseates progressives. For example, allowing markets to be free and the weather to do its thing are immoral. So then, government must make people and science play fairly. Steeply graduated taxation for financing that government constitutes noble robbery.

George Mason University economics professor Don Boudreaux, who is also a Café Hayek blogger, explains his acid test for determining the genuineness of someone's nobility.

Desire to help others is noble. It's noble, though, not in and of itself. It's noble only if it's likely to lead to helping others who truly need help. A desire to help others that prompts well-meaning people to address nonexistent problems isn't so much noble as it is misguided and, possibly, dangerous.

(snip)"The Heritage Foundation's Ralph Rector observed that the "typical American categorized as ‘poor' by the government" owns a refrigerator, stove, washing machine, home air conditioning, microwave, color TV, VCR, stereo, at least one car, and 30 percent of the time, two cars.

Evidently then, self-anointed noble watchdogs want us to believe that starving poor people, in the throes of fighting off a survival impulse transmitted by their stomachs to their brains, leave air-conditioned homes and drive air-conditioned cars to appliance stores where they buy microwave ovens to reheat nonexistent food that they didn't buy because they couldn't afford it. Such rationale passes for clear thought among progressives who push taxpayer funding for feel-good programs based on flawed science and economics.

If allowed to remain off-leash, where will noble progressives take America?

The Tax Foundation found that President Obama's policies would massively increase income redistribution. Already, 60 percent of Americans are "net ‘receivers' of federal government benefits." Most families earning no more than $86,000 currently pay less federal tax than the dollar-value of government benefits that they collect. The new threshold will grow to $109,000 if Obama gets his way on healthcare, carbon "cap-and-trade," and new taxes on the wealthy. The President's plans would annually take almost $1 trillion from the top-earning 30 percent of families and hand it to the bottom 70 percent. Essentially, three of ten families will pay all federal bills for the remaining seven.

Even before considering Obama's hefty redistributionism, every federal tax dollar paid by America's lowest earners garners for those earners $10.44 in federal benefits. The President's 2012 reelection campaign slogan will be, "Open a progressive savings account. Hold out your hand and I'll double your 1,000 percent interest rate."

Another Tax Foundation study puts a frightening perspective on Obama's grotesque spending. Eliminating the federal deficit could require a 95.2 percent tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. Beatle George Harrison captured his government's arrogance back when he was enduring confiscatory taxation. Harrison wrote, "Should five percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all." One wonders who it is that the noble progressives think will create the jobs they keep promising when $952 of every $1,000 earned by small business owners is used to pay unemployment compensation for people who have no job and no intention of getting one as long as the noble progressives have their backs.

Reality-blind progressives like Barack Obama and the left ideologues who inhabit Capital Hill will spend and borrow and tax and spend even as prosperity evaporates. They will "spread the wealth" so thinly that only the super wealthy will have any wealth left to confiscate for spreading. Progressives' tax-the-rich agenda could have the insidious effect of encouraging the wealthy to work less in order to avoid being nobly robbed of more of their wealth. If Barack Obama somehow rams through his prosperity-killing agenda, then John Galt will emerge from the mountains of Colorado to pluck the achievers from society once again."(snip)

from

Eric Stoner
02-22-2010, 01:27 PM
Oil is back up to $80 a barrel.

Melonie
02-22-2010, 04:17 PM
^^^ and Gold is above $1100 again

last month's 'too good to be true' 5.7% US GDP growth rate estimate was revised down to 4.5% ... with yet another downward revision expected next month as gov't estimates are replaced with factual data !

And surprise, surprise ... Illinois 'suddenly' finds itself facing fiscal doomsday, right along with California, New Jersey, New York etc. ...

(snip)""Doomsday is here for the State of Illinois," said Laurence Msall, the organization's president.

The Civic Federation recommends that the state income tax be increased from 3 percent to 5 percent for individuals, that retirees' pension and Social Security checks be taxed for the first time at the same rate as workers' paychecks, and the tax on cigarettes be raised by another $1 per pack. The group also favors getting rid of $181 million in corporate tax breaks.

Those tax increases, which would generate more than $8 billion, should come only if the state first can persuade its unionized employees to pay more toward their pensions and health care, cut pension benefits for new workers and reduce overall spending by $2.1 billion to 2007 levels. Medicaid programs and elementary and secondary schools would be spared from those cuts to avoid sacrificing federal stimulus dollars, Msall said."(snip)

Anybody want to bet me that the state and local tax increases on middle class Illinois taxpayers and Illinois businesses are put into effect, but that the union state worker paychecks and benefits remain untouched right along with school budgets and medicaid benefits ? Either way, the next Illinois emigration statistics should be interesting !



~

eagle2
02-22-2010, 09:19 PM
for seemingly the 100th time ...

http://economyleague.org/node/1333 "New study: Wealthy leaving New Jersey"

http://gothamist.com/2009/10/27/taxpayers_flee_new_york_taxes_too_h.php "Taxpayers Flee New York, Taxes Too High (Duh)"


Why don't you try responding to what I posted? I said California. I did not say anything about New Jersey or New York.



and http://www.nbclosangeles.com/around-town/real-estate/Cost-of-Living-Sucks-Everyone-Leaving-California.html?corder=&pg=1

(snip)"The number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008. California lost a net total of 144,000 people during that period -- more than any other state, according to census estimates. That is about equal to the population of Syracuse, N.Y.

The state with the next-highest net loss through migration between states was New York, which lost just over 126,000 residents.

California's loss is extremely small in a state of 38 million. And, in fact, the state's population continues to increase overall because of births and immigration, legal and illegal. But it is the fourth consecutive year that more residents decamped from California for other states than arrived here from within the U.S., according to state demographers."(snip)

^^^ if there is any other way to translate the above other than 'california taxpayers are leaving' and 'social welfare benefit consuming immigrants, legal and illegal, are taking their place', I'm definitely open to hearing it.


As I stated earlier. Poor people are leaving California in greater numbers than wealthy people. The poorest 1/5 of Californians are more likely to leave than the richest 1/5. In addition, significant numbers of wealthy people are moving into California, many of them from low tax states like Texas.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LeavingCAJTF.pdf

So which are you going to believe, the facts or your ideology?




In point of fact, coal fired power plants ARE shutting down ... because the environmental compliance cost investment required in order for them to renew their licenses is not economically viable. A comparatively tiny bit of new wind and solar power is coming online to replace the loss of generating capacity, but from a power grid standpoint wind and solar are unreliable power sources ( which require a spinning conventional power plant be online but unloaded in order to back them up when the wind stops blowing or a cloud bank floats by). While a bit of lip service has come out of Washington recently in regard to new nuclear power, in point of fact the one and only new nuclear power plant application ( Nine Mile 3 in upstate NY ) has now been withdrawn due to both lack of affordable funding ( after re-evaluation of project regulatory compliance costs and union labor construction costs ) and due to a lack of federal commitment ( i.e. refusal of the FERC to overrule local 'green' protester objections to the construction of a new power transmission line necessary to transport newly generated power to the NYC area where it is actually needed / priced high enough for the power plant to turn a net profit).

In the real world, US power grids have lost 'reliable' generating capacity due to the shutdown of coal fired power plants. And in the Northeast and West, arguably the only reason that the lights are still on is that former large electricity users i.e. energy intensive manufacturing plants have ceased operations and shifted their former US electric loads overseas ( along with jobs, tax revenues etc.), thus allowing a declining pool of generating capacity to still adequately service lower systemwide electricity demand levels. In the real world, the only significant new 'reliable' generating capacity coming online in America is natural gas fired - but which is also significantly more expensive to operate than coal or nuclear. But natural gas turbine power plants are the only option for new 'reliable' generating capacity that has both a comparatively low capital investment requirement as well as a comparatively low environmental litigation / compliance cost. And in the real world, with the exception of certain 'islands' of electricity users close to hydroelectric power or existing nuclear power, American electricity costs are going up at the same time that total system-wide electricity demand is going down !



Again you're making things up. The usage of electricity has increased over the past decade.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81




again your attempting to raise a very narrow point in hopes of obscuring the true state of affairs overall. The fact is that state and local gov'ts handle the bulk of wealth transfer dollars, with these welfare / medicaid / subsidized rent / subsidized utilities / other social programs comprise a significant dollar chunk of most states' budgets. But aside from state and local gov't spending their own tax revenues on wealth transfer programs, a significant portion of the total dollars that the states spend on wealth transfer programs actually originate with the federal gov't. But on the federal ledger this money given to the states is not listed as the wealth transfer spending that it really amounts to. Similarly, wealth transfer payments executed via the IRS, i.e. earned income tax credits, are similarly not listed as the wealth transfer spending that it really amounts to.

Or put another way, the gov't has deliberately fragmented social welfare / wealth transfer spending under a variety of different headings at the federal, state and local level. This was arguably a deliberate measure for the purpose of making an accurate accounting of total wealth transfer spending a de-facto impossibility.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/dispatch/2010/02/09/state-budgets-and-medicaid-programs/

~
Again, you're just making things up. Even one of the conservative sites you linked to earlier, I think it was the Heritage Foundation, stated that 5% of GDP goes towards programs for the poor.

eagle2
02-22-2010, 09:27 PM
I really try to avoid mixing economic facts and ideology, but since you bring it up yet again ...

Practically everything you post is ideology, or support of ideology and your perma-bear views, rather than facts.



(snip)"Washington routinely redistributes income within American society. When Joe Taxpayer receives government benefits that exceed what he pays in taxes, the effect is what the Heritage Foundation calls a "distributional deficit." Joe's higher-earning fellow taxpayers must fill that deficit. "Each year, government is involved in a large-scale transfer of resources between different social groups." The very idea that human nature or any natural law would be allowed to control humans or nature nauseates progressives. For example, allowing markets to be free and the weather to do its thing are immoral. So then, government must make people and science play fairly. Steeply graduated taxation for financing that government constitutes noble robbery.

George Mason University economics professor Don Boudreaux, who is also a Café Hayek blogger, explains his acid test for determining the genuineness of someone's nobility.

Desire to help others is noble. It's noble, though, not in and of itself. It's noble only if it's likely to lead to helping others who truly need help. A desire to help others that prompts well-meaning people to address nonexistent problems isn't so much noble as it is misguided and, possibly, dangerous.

(snip)"The Heritage Foundation's Ralph Rector observed that the "typical American categorized as ‘poor' by the government" owns a refrigerator, stove, washing machine, home air conditioning, microwave, color TV, VCR, stereo, at least one car, and 30 percent of the time, two cars.

Evidently then, self-anointed noble watchdogs want us to believe that starving poor people, in the throes of fighting off a survival impulse transmitted by their stomachs to their brains, leave air-conditioned homes and drive air-conditioned cars to appliance stores where they buy microwave ovens to reheat nonexistent food that they didn't buy because they couldn't afford it. Such rationale passes for clear thought among progressives who push taxpayer funding for feel-good programs based on flawed science and economics.

If allowed to remain off-leash, where will noble progressives take America?

The Tax Foundation found that President Obama's policies would massively increase income redistribution. Already, 60 percent of Americans are "net ‘receivers' of federal government benefits." Most families earning no more than $86,000 currently pay less federal tax than the dollar-value of government benefits that they collect. The new threshold will grow to $109,000 if Obama gets his way on healthcare, carbon "cap-and-trade," and new taxes on the wealthy. The President's plans would annually take almost $1 trillion from the top-earning 30 percent of families and hand it to the bottom 70 percent. Essentially, three of ten families will pay all federal bills for the remaining seven.

Even before considering Obama's hefty redistributionism, every federal tax dollar paid by America's lowest earners garners for those earners $10.44 in federal benefits. The President's 2012 reelection campaign slogan will be, "Open a progressive savings account. Hold out your hand and I'll double your 1,000 percent interest rate."

Another Tax Foundation study puts a frightening perspective on Obama's grotesque spending. Eliminating the federal deficit could require a 95.2 percent tax rate on the wealthiest Americans. Beatle George Harrison captured his government's arrogance back when he was enduring confiscatory taxation. Harrison wrote, "Should five percent appear too small, be thankful I don't take it all." One wonders who it is that the noble progressives think will create the jobs they keep promising when $952 of every $1,000 earned by small business owners is used to pay unemployment compensation for people who have no job and no intention of getting one as long as the noble progressives have their backs.

Reality-blind progressives like Barack Obama and the left ideologues who inhabit Capital Hill will spend and borrow and tax and spend even as prosperity evaporates. They will "spread the wealth" so thinly that only the super wealthy will have any wealth left to confiscate for spreading. Progressives' tax-the-rich agenda could have the insidious effect of encouraging the wealthy to work less in order to avoid being nobly robbed of more of their wealth. If Barack Obama somehow rams through his prosperity-killing agenda, then John Galt will emerge from the mountains of Colorado to pluck the achievers from society once again."(snip)

from http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_fraud_of_progressive_nobil.html

More ideology. I'm sure an article mentioning "John Galt emerging from the mountains" is a very mainstream, factual piece.

Eric Stoner
02-23-2010, 08:00 AM
Eagle ? To avoid unecessary squabbling and for my own edification : How do YOU diffentiate between facts and "ideology" ? When is a fact a fact afayc ?

If Melonie cites valid stats, how is that "ideology" ?

We've repeatedly discussed, and Melonie has explained many times, that the articles she cites are posted for everyone's benefit ; to take or leave as they see fit. At least she appears to actually READ them before she does. For the most part they always seem to say what she claims they do. Unlike a few things you've linked to.

On those infrequent occasions when I agree with you and disagree with her , it's because imo the weight of the evidence supports your pov. Your "ideology" has zero relevance afaic. The facts are the facts.

Your arguments always carry greater weight with me ( and perhaps with others as well ) when you link to or cite F A C T S. Better facts. More accurate facts. More up to date facts. More complete facts.
That's how I judge the relative worth of opinions ( aka "ideology") and that's how most thinking people usually do it.

Now as to the discussion at hand, are you claiming that the Federal government does NOT redistribute income ? Why else do we have a supposedly "progressive" Tax Code ?

The fact is that most Americans DO receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. We Do have the wealthiest "poor" people in the world as measured by material things they own. Compare an average poor person here and one "on the dole" in the U.K.. Compare rates of home, car and appliance ownership. We DO have government workers who on average make more than the average taxpayer. Now Obama is proposing that student loans be forgiven for anyone who works for the government for five years after graduation ? WHY ? There is no shortage of Federal employees. Quite the contrary. Their income is HIGHER than in the private sector. How is this proposal "Fair" ?

A lot of the disagreement here arises from the age old tension over varying notions about "equality". Melonie and I support equality before the law and equality of opportunity; NOT equality of results. And when someone is successful, we don't support robbing them of the fruits of their success.

Melonie
02-23-2010, 01:05 PM
while this is drifting off topic, I will concur that the information contained in any links I post is only as good as the ultimate source behind the link. However, I'm getting very 'tired' of constantly being requested to post additional data in support of my points while contrary positions post next to nothing concrete and hope that pointing a 'biased source' or 'ideological dogma' finger will be sufficient to blow my point out of the water despite the existance of factual data backing up that point. In the future the 'burden of proof' needs to be more fairly shared or I'm not going to bother to troll up and post additional support data.


More ideology. I'm sure an article mentioning "John Galt emerging from the mountains" is a very mainstream, factual piece.

it may not be mainstream, but that doesn't discredit the accuracy of the facts it contains !


I would also point out that where objectivity is concerned the supposedly contradictory California migration data link you posted from PPIC is far from an objective source. PPIC is operated by a Hewlett family member and receives primary funding from an organization called the Hewlett Foundation ... which has clearly stated its activist social and environmental agenda



additionally, the fine print at the end of the PPIC link states that the data set used to derive their conclusions differs from US census data, and that small sample sizes where 'rich' Californians are concerned may be a factor. Additionally, it appears that the PPIC data set totally disregards the effects of legal and illegal immigration into California ( which vastly skews the conclusions unless some of those immigrants are earning $100k+ per year on the books ).


Circling back on topic, the main point of this entire discourse was that 'technically bankrupt' US states ( and counties and cities for that matter ) are by and large resorting to large tax increases to narrow their budget deficits, while implementing comparatively small spending reductions. These higher state income taxes / property taxes / sales taxes / excise taxes provide an ever stronger motivation for high earning residents of those states to emigrate, because the personal dollar cost of those tax increases disproportionately affect them via higher progressive state income tax rates extracting a much higher dollar amount of their higher income.

I would also point out that there is big difference between high earners and 'rich' people. As recently published IRS statistics show, many 'rich' people are able to legally shield their 'earnings' from these increased taxes. This is accomplished via investments in tax-free muni bonds, by partnership investments in 'green energy' companies that accrue production tax credits, by the formation of trusts etc. Thus 'rich' people who already HAVE millions of dollars may certainly be moving to California since higher California INCOME tax rates actually have little or no effect on their 'earnings'. But highly skilled highly paid 'working' Californians who are trying to earn / save their first million will be increasingly unable to do so, thanks to increasing income tax rates. It is the latter who have the strongest motivation to emigrate.

As a parting comment I would also mention that professional dancers are typically not 'rich', but they are high earners !

~

Eric Stoner
02-23-2010, 02:31 PM
I am shocked, SHOCKED ! that Eagle is not relying on ideologically pure and politically neutral sources of information and data.

To return to the main thrust of the thread- New York State and City sales tax collections dropped from $11.5 billion in 2008 to $10.8 billion for 2009 and from $4.9 billion to $4.6 billion for the same years for NYC. Hardest hit were the wealthier NYC suburbs of Westchester, Putnam and Nassau counties where sales tax revenues dropped at least 10%. These figures were released yesterday by the NYS Comptroller's Office.

Melonie
02-23-2010, 03:27 PM
while California sales tax figures available from MSM are now a bit dated, the trend is the same

(snip)" The latest figures show that San Francisco sales tax revenue is down $1.7 million, Oakland is down $476,000, Santa Clara $437,000 and Burlingame $103,000 less than what was expected. [ obviously these figures are not annual, probably monthly ? - sic ]

"Percentage-wise business is probably down, I'd say about 20 percent. We've seen a lot of store closures in the small mom and pop businesses," said Lucy store manager Javey Affonso.

Affonso's estimate of 20 percent is just about exactly the average state-wide. "(snip)

from

an updated report from the California state Comptroller won't be released until May ... but it is guaranteed to be bad news.


I would add that the 'gold foil hat' crowd considers sales tax revenue figures to be THE most reliable indicator of economic activity / trends. The obvious reason for this is that sales tax revenues only accrue as a direct result of real people spending their real money. In the alternate universe of gov't estimates which include hedonic adjustments, birth/death models, categoric exclusions etc., statistics that stem from real people spending real money are guaranteed to be far more accurate.

~

eagle2
02-23-2010, 09:19 PM
Eagle ? To avoid unecessary squabbling and for my own edification : How do YOU diffentiate between facts and "ideology" ? When is a fact a fact afayc ?

A fact is based on evidence. A statement based on ideology has no evidence to support it, but is based on what you think is true, because of your ideology. For example, stating that electricity usage in the US has decreased 10% over the past decade, and then showing a link to a page with electricity usage statistics that show total kWh's in the US are 10% lower today than they were ten years ago, would be a fact, assuming the data is accurate. Stating that total electricity usage has decreased in the US, because environmental laws have made electricity from coal-powered plants more costly and/or caused coal-powered plants to close, without even knowing what the numbers are, is a statement based on ideology. Just because environmental laws have made electricity from coal-powered plants more expensive, or has caused some coal-powered plants to close, does not mean usage of electricity has decreased. Some people seem to think this is automatically going to happen, just because of their ideology, but it's not. Passing environmental legislation that makes coal-powered power plants more costly/less feasible doesn't automatically mean electric usage will decrease. There is nothing that prevents the use of electricity from increasing, especially if there are alternatives, such as gas-powered plants.



If Melonie cites valid stats, how is that "ideology" ?

She often doesn't quote valid stats, just like she didn't when she claimed that total system-wide electricity demand is going down.



We've repeatedly discussed, and Melonie has explained many times, that the articles she cites are posted for everyone's benefit ; to take or leave as they see fit. At least she appears to actually READ them before she does. For the most part they always seem to say what she claims they do. Unlike a few things you've linked to.

On those infrequent occasions when I agree with you and disagree with her , it's because imo the weight of the evidence supports your pov. Your "ideology" has zero relevance afaic. The facts are the facts.

Your arguments always carry greater weight with me ( and perhaps with others as well ) when you link to or cite F A C T S. Better facts. More accurate facts. More up to date facts. More complete facts.
That's how I judge the relative worth of opinions ( aka "ideology") and that's how most thinking people usually do it.


and Melonie does make claims without linking to data or citing facts as in the example I cited, where she claims that demand for electricity is going down.



Now as to the discussion at hand, are you claiming that the Federal government does NOT redistribute income ? Why else do we have a supposedly "progressive" Tax Code ?

I don't deny, there is some income redistribution, but not to the extent that the article Melonie posted says there is. I doubt that 60% percent of Americans receive more benefits than they pay in taxes. Her article doesn't provide any evidence to support this claim. It is probably based on the assumption that government spending is divided equally among all Americans. It isn't. There are many benefits that aren't based on income level. It is very possible for some wealthy Americans to receive more benefits than many middle class Americans. A wealthy family with several children in public schools would be receiving more government benefits than a middle-class, childless individual or couple.



The fact is that most Americans DO receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. We Do have the wealthiest "poor" people in the world as measured by material things they own. Compare an average poor person here and one "on the dole" in the U.K.. Compare rates of home, car and appliance ownership. We DO have government workers who on average make more than the average taxpayer. Now Obama is proposing that student loans be forgiven for anyone who works for the government for five years after graduation ? WHY ? There is no shortage of Federal employees. Quite the contrary. Their income is HIGHER than in the private sector. How is this proposal "Fair" ?

There are many poor people in the US that aren't very well off. I'm just as much against giving government assistance to those who don't need it as anyone, but there are plenty of people who do legitimately need help from the government. This is especially true of health insurance, where many middle class individuals or families are unable to afford it if they don't get it from their employer.



A lot of the disagreement here arises from the age old tension over varying notions about "equality". Melonie and I support equality before the law and equality of opportunity; NOT equality of results. And when someone is successful, we don't support robbing them of the fruits of their success.

I don't support equality of results either, but I do support making sure all Americans have at least a minimum standard of living. We should not have people going without enough food to eat or decent shelter. There is more income inequality in our country today, then there has been since the 1920's.

Melonie
02-24-2010, 12:55 AM
^^^ for one final time, there are links and then there are authoritative sources. Have a look at ... particularly figure 11 which shows that actual power consumption in the California ISO system peaked in 2006, and declined in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The 2010 forecast is 'flat' versus 2009, but then again the forecasts made for 2008 and 2009 were significantly higher than the actual power consumption numbers that were eventually measured.

You'll also find in the same document that the California ISO's #1 source of additional generating capacity needed to replace 'retiring' generating capacity is IMPORTS from other power systems ... including northern Mexico !

Similar actual power generation and consumption data is available from the NYISO, the ISO-NE, and a host of other electrical systems. Without taking the trouble to dredge up similar report data, I'll simply say that other systems are also relying on IMPORTS as their #1 source of additional generating capacity needed to replace 'retiring' generating capacity ( i.e. coal fired power plants ) ... albeit that those systems' imports may come from Canada rather than from Mexico.

If your link wants to count power imported from Mexico and Canada as being equivalent to power being generated within the USA, it is following a well established gov't sanctioned accounting precedent ! However, just like auto / auto parts production or consumer goods production which is subject to a similar NAFTA-esque interpretatation, counting this power production as American does not mean that the jobs associated with this production are still American !

Also, when conclusions are drawn which employ long term averaging of electrical consumption over the entire decade of the 2000's it effectively makes use of the long post 9/11 economic recovery to offset recent declines to obscure recent trends. This is akin to certain pundits claiming that the US stock market hasn't actually declined over the past decade. Most investors are far more concerned with recent stock portfolio / 401k value changes than with 'ancient history'.

~

eagle2
02-24-2010, 09:50 AM
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp

in 2009, 23,475 MW (megawatts) of new generation capacity are planned in the U.S. Of this, over 50%, or 12,334 MW will be natural gas fired additions.

Melonie
02-25-2010, 03:50 PM
^^^ yet another example of attempting to use a technically correct but narrowly focused point to try and obscure the TRUE facts from those who don't understand the real world situation. Consider the following ...

A 1000 MW coal fired generator can produce 1000 MW of 'reliable' electricity into the power grid 24 hours a day 365 days a year ( with occasional planned shutdowns ). In comparison, a wind farm consisting of 100 * 10 MW wind turbines can produce 1000 MW of electricity ONLY IF the wind is blowing above a certain speed ( usually at least 10 knots ). If the wind velocity drops to nothing, then the output of the wind farm drops to nothing. To 'cover' for this unreliability, for every 1000 MW of wind turbines the power grid operator must also start up a 1000 MW gas turbine generator to serve as 'spinning reserve' for the wind turbines. In other words, the fast responding gas turbine generator must throttle up to max power when the wind stops blowing in order to avoid brownouts, and must throttle back when the wind gusts to avoid overloading the power grid.

So from the standpoint of your link and above post, retiring a 1000 MW coal fired power plant and replacing it with a 1000 MW wind farm PLUS a 1000 MW gas turbine generating plant amounts to 1000 MW of 'growth' in generation capacity. But to the power grid operator, retiring a 1000 MW coal fired power plant and replacing it with 1000 MW wind farm PLUS a 1000 MW gas turbine generating plant is a 'break even' situation providing zero increase in net 'reliable' power grid generation capacity !

This is the dirty little secret of wind and solar power ... that they are essentially an unreliable nuisance to power grid operation, requiring 100% 'spinning reserve' generator operation to keep the grid from browning out when the wind stops blowing or a cloud drifts by.

~