Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Ethanol lead to food cost escalation for sure.
How you figure ethanol led to the gasoline cost rise I do not know. Ethanol accelerating subprime mortgages, but not as much as gasoline costs. Non-productive because while you hold it, gold does nothing for anyone, but when you buy bills or bonds, you invested in something for someone else to invest.
Minimum wage is still very controversial in economic circles, let alone in political ones, partly because companies can also downgrade people into independent contractor, part-time, and service employee statuses which are not subject to minimum wage laws, or benefits either. But it does increase employment opportunities for those who otherwise would remain on welfare. And it forces employers to maintain/improve efficiency to gain more productivity from low-skilled workers (training) which allows them to progress out of that class.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
How you figure ethanol led to the gasoline cost rise I do not know
The February 2007 ethanol mandate included a 10% blend requirement i.e. for every 1 gallon of gasoline fuel there is .9 gallon of gasoline (wholesale price under $1 per gallon) plus .1 gallon of ethanol (wholesale price above $4 per gallon, with subsidies) resulting in a wholesale price for blended gasoline in the $1.30 ballpark ( versus only $1 for pure gasoline). On top of that, the US gov't imposed a stealth 56 cent per gallon ethanol excise tax ( = 5.6 cents per gallon for 10% blend) that is collected at the gas pump and directly kicked back to US ethanol refiners. So at the moment, the price premium at the gas pump directly attributable to ethanol mandates is around 36 cents per gallon !!!
Quote:
But it does increase employment opportunities for those who otherwise would remain on welfare.
again this factual fallacy. People who are receiving social welfare benefits will cut their hours and/or quit their jobs if their earnings rise to the point that they risk losing future benefit eligibility. This is the result of 'moral hazard' created by state and federal gov't which in essence requires a quantum leap in earnings from $20-25k per year to $40k+ per year to replace the equivalent cash value of lost social welfare benefits / subsidized rent benefits / subsidized utility benefits. Increasing income from the $20-25k ballpark to the $30-35k ballpark can in many cases result in a REDUCTION in standard of living, because the extra paycheck earnings fall short of replacing the equivalent cash value of lost social welfare benefits / subsidized rent benefits / subsidized utility benefits etc.
Quote:
And it forces employers to maintain/improve efficiency to gain more productivity from low-skilled workers (training) which allows them to progress out of that class
more factual fallacy. The major efficiency gains achieved by minimum wage and 'near' minimum wage employers has been from increased automation, increased outsourcing ( to $2 an hour Asia ), and forcing that an existing workload be shared among fewer remaining minimum wage and 'near' minimum wage employees. It is inarguable fact that increasing the US minimum wage REDUCED the total number of minimum wage jobs still available.
Quote:
Non-productive because while you hold it, gold does nothing for anyone, but when you buy bills or bonds, you invested in something for someone else to invest
like what ... a bailout of GM and Chrysler ? Bridges to Nowhere ? An extra 20 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits before unemployed people are 'forced' to start seeking replacement jobs ?
And arguably holding gold does do something for someone ... it insulates them from a loss of purchasing power as their home currency declines in exchange rate value.
~
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
The February 2007 ethanol mandate included a 10% blend requirement ... the US gov't imposed a stealth 56 cent per gallon ethanol excise tax... So at the moment, the price premium at the gas pump directly attributable to ethanol mandates is around 36 cents per gallon !!!
I see your point. Ethanol is not much of an answer to high gasoline prices and not much more help to balance of trade; I agree there.
Quote:
again this factual fallacy. People who are receiving social welfare benefits will cut their hours and/or quit their jobs if their earnings rise to the point that they risk losing future benefit eligibility. This ... created by state and federal gov't which in essence requires a quantum leap in earnings ... to replace the equivalent cash value of lost social welfare ... benefits etc.
The stupidity of the social benefits system is pretty incredible; not that is is not needed or bad in principle. Logic would dictate that the benefit systems be coordinated to develop more productive people, even those raising small kids. But it doesn't because everything in the system was a big compromise at the time and no one thought about the entire system design. I'm sure you would rather do away with the whole mess, leaving us in an 1800s situation, since you have not had a single good thing to say about it.
Quote:
more factual fallacy. The major efficiency gains achieved by minimum wage and 'near' minimum wage employers has been from increased automation, ... and forcing that an existing workload be shared among fewer remaining minimum wage and 'near' minimum wage employees. It is inarguable fact that increasing the US minimum wage REDUCED the total number of minimum wage jobs still available.
Increased productivity and quality of work should be the goal of every company and employee. Anyone I've known on minimum wage wished to gain better salary by being trained for better work or being promoted into it if they have already been trained equivalently. If their employer isn't able to do that, those employees will not be loyal and will seek better work. Short of being able to do that, they wish their minimum wage were higher. Over the last couple of decades the minumum wage purchasing power has reduced in the face of inflation but the influx of cheap Chinese junk has allowed them to remain viable. And to a large extent, that increased demand for Chinese imports is a partial result of inadequate wages.
Quote:
... a bailout of GM and Chrysler? ... An extra 20 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits before unemployed people are 'forced' to start seeking replacement jobs?
At least the auto bailout has a chance of working better than a much larger one did for the finance industry, for one thing because they produce a physical product that can be quantified. So you think that anyone who gets of UI will want to stay there until the last possible check comes in because they were lazy and that's probably why they were laid off in the first place? Well, now, that is just wrong-headed. You are confusing welfare with unemployment. Must be nice to be able to point your finger at anyone who is not as fortunate as you and blame them for everything that befalls them.
Quote:
And arguably holding gold does do something for someone ... it insulates them from a loss of purchasing power as their home currency declines in exchange rate value.
Yes, it is strictly a personal protection thing and has no social benefits to anyone else except others who deal in gold. It is a reactionary position, not just a conservative one.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
again this factual fallacy. People who are receiving social welfare benefits will cut their hours and/or quit their jobs if their earnings rise to the point that they risk losing future benefit eligibility. This is the result of 'moral hazard' created by state and federal gov't which in essence requires a quantum leap in earnings from $20-25k per year to $40k+ per year to replace the equivalent cash value of lost social welfare benefits / subsidized rent benefits / subsidized utility benefits. Increasing income from the $20-25k ballpark to the $30-35k ballpark can in many cases result in a REDUCTION in standard of living, because the extra paycheck earnings fall short of replacing the equivalent cash value of lost social welfare benefits / subsidized rent benefits / subsidized utility benefits etc.
This is conservative mythology. For welfare, there are time limits as to how long you can keep your benefits. Even before these limits came into law, less than 1/2 of all welfare recipients stayed on welfare for more than two years. Many of the benefits to the poor taper off as income increases, rather than all or nothing. For a family of four with an income of $20,000, the EITC is approximately $3,000. For a family of four with an income of $30,000, the EITC is approximately $1,000. In addition, there are benefits for people who make higher income that are not available to those with low income. People with higher incomes can afford more expensive houses, for which they receive federal subsidies through mortgage deductions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
It is inarguable fact that increasing the US minimum wage REDUCED the total number of minimum wage jobs still available.
No it isn't. You're the one who is putting out factual fallacy when you repeat your conservative myths. Studies have shown that raising the minimum wage does not reduce jobs. A study in Florida showed employment increased after the minimum wage was raised there. Employment actually grew faster in Florida after the minimum wage was raised there, than it did in neighboring Georgia which continued to keep the federal minimum wage. Below is a link to the study:
http://www.risep-fiu.org/reports/Flo...age_Report.pdf
This is the problem with conservative ideologues. Their views are based entirely on hypothetical theories come up with in conservative think tanks rather than what actually happens in the real world. For the conservative ideologue, ideology is going to take precendence over facts and evidence every time.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
^^^ EITC is really a 'drop in the bucket' relative to the total cash value of social welfare programs. It is the medicaid, subsidized rent, and subsidized utility benefits that have the largest non-cash value. And while there is some progressivity in regard to subsidized rent, benefits like medicaid, subsidized utilities, and other lesser benefit programs are tied to a fixed earnings eligibility threshold.
As to time limits, again the 'rules' for EITC are far different from those for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities etc. In New York at least, recipients remain eligible for these benefits forever as long as their incomes don't exceed the eligibility threshold.
I would also argue that the home mortgage tax deduction, like green energy tax credits and other examples of 'social engineering' by the gov't, are NOT lifestyle changers. In comparison, paying $5k+ per year out of pocket for health insurance, paying an extra $400+ a month out of pocket for rent, paying an extra $200+ per month out of pocket for utility bills etc. can indeed be lifestyle changers !
As to studies on the effect of minimum wage increases on unemployment levels, I would offer any number of alternative studies to the one you posted (which by the way was admittedly funded by ACORN ! ... of course no reason to infer that liberal ideology biased that report is there ?)
and particularly ...
which shows hard numbers for the non-conservative state of Washington and draws appropriate conclusions.
(snip)"The passage of the referendum in 1998 that has dramatically raised the state minimum wage in Washington is a quintessential example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The goal was to improve the lot of the disadvantaged in Washington, but the effect has been for poverty to rise, not fall, and rise far more than income trends would suggest should happen. The Washington minimum wage law created not eliminated poverty. It did it largely by creating unemployment and reduced hours for workers. While various estimates of job loss were calculated, the true figure likely is not less than 24,000 (0.8 percent of the labor force) and may be as high as 48,000 – after correcting for the impact of the business cycle turndown. The job losses were found in virtually every sector of the Washington economy. Some occupations relying heavily on relatively less skilled labor were particularly impacted. The restaurant industry suffered more job losses than most industries, and if the shortening of hours is taken into account, the employment effects may well be double or triple as severe as was typical of other industries. Agriculture, competing in highly competitive markets where farmers have no control over price, probably suffered not only from job loss, but from the profit squeeze that the minimum wage imposed, as evidenced by a noticeable drop in the number of farm proprietors (unlike in earlier periods, where the number had grown).
The Washington minimum wage, then, has failed in its primary objective. Rather than a relatively cheap way to alleviate poverty, the law has cruelly and capriciously brought about job and income loss to workers and small entrepreneurs. Had the voters known this would happen, it is difficult to believe they would have endorsed this well intended but truly economically destructive mandate. "(snip)
Again, this discussion of minimum wage is pretty far off topic, other than it's verification of the Law of Unintended Consequences where gov't policy changes in the economy are concerned. The relevant point would actually be to apply the same economic / employment level principles to (potential) Obama tax increases on the 'rich' - in turn prompting 'rich' Americans to pull the plug on 'productive' US investments, and instead to relocate their money to either offshore investments or relatively 'non-productive' but tax advantaged US investments - versus future US economic activity / employment levels.
!~
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eagle2
This is the problem with conservative ideologues. Their views are based entirely on hypothetical theories come up with in conservative think tanks rather than what actually happens in the real world. For the conservative ideologue, ideology is going to take precendence over facts and evidence every time.
:thanx:
a very siggy worthy comment too
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
^^^ obviously the same observation doesn't apply to liberal ideologues ?
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ EITC is really a 'drop in the bucket' relative to the total cash value of social welfare programs. It is the medicaid, subsidized rent, and subsidized utility benefits that have the largest non-cash value. And while there is some progressivity in regard to subsidized rent, benefits like medicaid, subsidized utilities, and other lesser benefit programs are tied to a fixed earnings eligibility threshold.
As to time limits, again the 'rules' for EITC are far different from those for medicaid, subsidized rent, subsidized utilities etc. In New York at least, recipients remain eligible for these benefits forever as long as their incomes don't exceed the eligibility threshold.
I would also argue that the home mortgage tax deduction, like green energy tax credits and other examples of 'social engineering' by the gov't, are NOT lifestyle changers. In comparison, paying $5k+ per year out of pocket for health insurance, paying an extra $400+ a month out of pocket for rent, paying an extra $200+ per month out of pocket for utility bills etc. can indeed be lifestyle changers !
For many people, the home mortgage tax deduction is a lifestyle changer. Without it, they could not afford to buy a home. There are many jobs available paying $30,000 - $40,000 a year where the employer pays for health insurance. Also SCHIP covers insurance for children in middle class families with incomes way above the poverty level. In general, I would say that a family earning $30,000 - $35,000 a year is better off than a family earning $20,000 a year, especially if their employer provides health insurance. I doubt there are many people who turn down higher paying jobs just because they may get less government assistance. I know that where I work, some of the lower skilled positions start out at around $20,000 a year and I don't see those people turning down pay raises and promotions so they can get more government assistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
As to studies on the effect of minimum wage increases on unemployment levels, I would offer any number of alternative studies to the one you posted (which by the way was admittedly funded by ACORN ! ... of course no reason to infer that liberal ideology biased that report is there ?)
Who funded the study is irrelavent. It doesn't change the fact that after raising the minimum wage, the state of Florida experienced above average job growth, rather than job losses, as the conservative ideologues predicted. It doesn't change the fact that after raising the minimum wage, Florida had a higher rate of job growth and lower unemployment than the state of Georgia, which kept their minimum wage at the Federal level. Unless you can find inaccuracies in the report, it is irrelavent who funded it. Facts are facts regardless of who they are reported by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s190/s190h.html
http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/re...um/50years.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1176.cfm
and particularly ...
http://biz.npri.org/minimum/WAMinWageStudy.pdf
which shows hard numbers for the non-conservative state of Washington and draws appropriate conclusions.
(snip)"The passage of the referendum in 1998 that has dramatically raised the state minimum wage in Washington is a quintessential example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The goal was to improve the lot of the disadvantaged in Washington, but the effect has been for poverty to rise, not fall, and rise far more than income trends would suggest should happen. The Washington minimum wage law created not eliminated poverty. It did it largely by creating unemployment and reduced hours for workers. While various estimates of job loss were calculated, the true figure likely is not less than 24,000 (0.8 percent of the labor force) and may be as high as 48,000 – after correcting for the impact of the business cycle turndown. The job losses were found in virtually every sector of the Washington economy. Some occupations relying heavily on relatively less skilled labor were particularly impacted. The restaurant industry suffered more job losses than most industries, and if the shortening of hours is taken into account, the employment effects may well be double or triple as severe as was typical of other industries. Agriculture, competing in highly competitive markets where farmers have no control over price, probably suffered not only from job loss, but from the profit squeeze that the minimum wage imposed, as evidenced by a noticeable drop in the number of farm proprietors (unlike in earlier periods, where the number had grown).
The Washington minimum wage, then, has failed in its primary objective. Rather than a relatively cheap way to alleviate poverty, the law has cruelly and capriciously brought about job and income loss to workers and small entrepreneurs. Had the voters known this would happen, it is difficult to believe they would have endorsed this well intended but truly economically destructive mandate. "(snip)
Your article doesn't mention that overall, the United States as a whole, also experienced job loss and Washington lost jobs at a lower rate than the national average. In addition, of the 11 states with a minimum wage above the federal level, 8 of them experienced job growth or job loss below the national average and only two were worse. In Washing most of the minimum wage jobs are in the food industry, and by 2003 the number of jobs in the industry grew above pre-recession levels. (from:
https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstr...pdf?sequence=1)
Again, the facts contradict the conservatives' claim that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy. If you look at the national level, when the minimum wage was raised in 1997, the unemployment rate fell to one its lowest levels ever the following year. Again, the facts contradict conservative ideology.
Overall, raising the minimum wage $1 or $2 an hour will not have a major impact on the overall economy, since only a small percentage of workers have minimum wage jobs. For those families whose main income comes from a minimum wage worker, $1 or $2 an hour can make a big difference in those families' ability to feed, clothe, and house themselves. Sadly, for conservative ideologues, their ideology is more important than the welfare of those familes. Of course, those conservative ideologues who are opposed to any minimum wage, would probably never take a job themselves that paid below the minimum wage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Again, this discussion of minimum wage is pretty far off topic, other than it's verification of the Law of Unintended Consequences where gov't policy changes in the economy are concerned.
!~
No, it shows the fallacy of the conservatives/libertarians "law of unintended consequences" on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
The relevant point would actually be to apply the same economic / employment level principles to (potential) Obama tax increases on the 'rich' - in turn prompting 'rich' Americans to pull the plug on 'productive' US investments, and instead to relocate their money to either offshore investments or relatively 'non-productive' but tax advantaged US investments - versus future US economic activity / employment levels.
I doubt that many people are going to pull out of US investments just because tax rates increased a few percentage points for capital gains over $250,000.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ obviously the same observation doesn't apply to liberal ideologues ?
I don't see liberal ideologues continue to push for failed liberal policies the same way conservative ideologues push for failed conservative policies.
I don't see liberal ideologues arguing for light prison sentences for violent criminals.
I don't see liberal ideologues arguing to spend more money on high-rise housing projects.
I don't see liberals arguing for overturning welfare reform.
Overall, I don't see liberals showing the same disdain for facts that conservatives do:
Fact: The last two major income tax cuts reduced federal income and caused large budget deficits
Conservative ideologue: Tax cuts always generate more government revenue.
Fact: Environmental regulations have significantly reduced pollution and improved the environment over the past 40 years, while at the same time the economy grew significantly.
Conservative ideologue: Environmental regulations are bad for the economy
Fact: After raising the minimum wage at the federal level in 1997, the unemployment rate fell the next year. After raising the minimum wage at the state level in some states, most of these states experienced more job growth or fewer job losses than states that didn't.
Conservative ideologue: Raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy and will cause job losses.
Fact: Global temperatures are rising and the overwhelming majority of scientists in climate-related fields agree that man-made CO2 emissions are contributing to it.
Conservative ideologue: No matter how much evidence there is, global warming is definitely not being caused by man and nothing should be done.
No matter what the facts are, conservate ideologues will not accept them if they contradict conservative principles. Facts and evidence will bounce off a conservative ideologue the same way bullets bounce off Superman.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Flat tax is only fair to those who can afford it. For instance, lets say it's 20% of income. For a family making 20,000/year that's $4000. Which lowers their income to $16,000/year. For a family making 200,000/year that's $40,000 lowering their income to $160,000/year. The first family is now below the poverty line while the second family is still living very well. A flat tax is extremely unfair to poor people.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
^^^ unfair in what way ? Do individual households earning $200k per year use 10 times as much in the way of gov't services as individual households earning $20k per year ? The answer is obviously NO ... and arguably the very opposite is true. Of course this discussion will inevitably degenerate into a discussion of tax basics i.e. option 1 being that taxes are simply the means of funding necessary gov't services, but option 2 being that taxes are the means of redistributing wealth to implement gov't backed 'social engineering' policies.
I would also support a flat tax in this idealized form ... or any other alternate tax method which would subject at least 90% of US households to the effects of an income tax. Arguably it is the 'moral hazard' created by our current tax system which exempts over 40% of American households from actually having to pay an income tax, which in turn allows them to cast votes in regard to gov't economic policities for which they will be exempt from negative consequences, that served as the true basis for America's current widespread economic problems !
Just as arguably, it is the continued existance of offshore tax loopholes, of gov't backed tax favored investments etc. which creates a similar 'moral hazard' situation for the American very rich also escaping the majority of negative consequences in regard to gov't economic policies. And that also happens to bring us full circle right back to the original topic !
~
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Miss_Luscious
Flat tax is only fair to those who can afford it. For instance, lets say it's 20% of income. For a family making 20,000/year that's $4000. Which lowers their income to $16,000/year. For a family making 200,000/year that's $40,000 lowering their income to $160,000/year. The first family is now below the poverty line while the second family is still living very well. A flat tax is extremely unfair to poor people.
I'd tend to disagree as it gives all people the same stake in their country, but I wouldn't be against a single level of graduation. Just picking a number, the real number would be set by a minimum living standard, but say everyone at or below $20K pays nothing and than you set the % at $20,001 and above.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
^^^ well with that single change, like any change, you leave the realm of mathematical and tax policy simplicity and enter into 'tweakable' complexity. So now what happens in regard to gov't tax credits ... does the treasury pay them to people earning less than your $20k per year threshold even though they haven't actually paid any taxes for a 'tax credit' to be issued against ? Also what happens in regard to government services ... does the government still provide them for the person who earned less than $20k per year even though they paid absolutely no tax money to help fund those services ?
I'm not saying that 'tweaking' the tax formula is right or wrong, only that it departs from the fundamental 'fairness' of a flat percentage 'fair tax' system and enters the dangerous realm of 'social engineering' via gov't tweaking of tax policy.
And the minute taxes can be 'tweaked' for the benefit of one group of Americans, pressure to also 'tweak' in favor of another group of Americans isn't far behind. One example that immediately comes to mind is continued tax exemptions for municipal bonds which sell for $50k or $100k each ... continuation of which would allow the uber-rich to earn tax free bond interest under a supposedly 'fair tax' system the same way they are able to earn tax free bond interest under the existing tax system.
Of course the uber-rich would also have another huge loophole under any 'fair tax' system as well ... the ability to purchase their new luxury car / yacht / private plane / jewelry overseas ... use it a while in order to qualify as 'second hand goods' ... and then bring it back to the USA without having to pay tax on the purchase. The uber-rich usually don't bother doing this if the 'sales tax' is on the order of a few percent, but rich Californians have been made famous for doing this with the purchase of expensive yachts. But if that tax now approaches 25% of the selling price, all of a sudden a strong incentive to make offshore purchases will arise. After all, under a 'fair tax' system they could save $50k on the purchase of a new Ferrari in Italy or the purchase of a new Porsche in Germany, a savings which easily covers the cost of their European vacation to buy the car and drive it around awhile plus the shipping charges to eventually bring it back to America !
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ well with that single change, like any change, you leave the realm of mathematical and tax policy simplicity and enter into 'tweakable' complexity. So now what happens in regard to gov't tax credits ... does the treasury pay them to people earning less than your $20k per year threshold even though they haven't actually paid any taxes for a 'tax credit' to be issued against ?
No tax credits. No deductions. No loop holes. A true flat tax. That is why it would have to come with the elimination of all other taxes, etc, because you'd be getting no credit for having paid them.
Quote:
I'm not saying that 'tweaking' the tax formula is right or wrong, only that it departs from the fundamental 'fairness' of a flat percentage 'fair tax' system and enters the dangerous realm of 'social engineering' via gov't tweaking of tax policy.
I don't disagree. It is simply, as exampled by the poster I was responding to, that many US citizens would not accept a flat tax without this provision for people making less than poverty level income.
Re: end of year rush of 'offshore' relocations to avoid Obama tax increases ...
It is not the progressive tax rate system that is problemmatic; it is the tax dodges, loopholes, preferences that the rich exploit (and influence legislatures to create) that are the big problems.
That $4000/$20,000 can represent basic needs like food, medicine, transport to work, education that are vital for a person to do well and have opportunities to rise. While the $40,000/$200,000 can represent vanity toys, multiple vacations, ostentatious lifestyles which are certainly not essential to anything except personal vanity and that most of us will never see. That uncaring attitude that capitalists have about others is the most detestible factor many see for the consequences of an essentially exploitative system.