This Just In - Top 10% Paid 70% of 2010 Federal Taxes

[Magox]

What The Federal Government Can Learn From Some of the States’ “Stand Aside” Policies

 

 

The Economist has a good article this week about the contrast between “the America that works” and “the America that doesn’t,” as they put it. Interestingly, the America that doesn’t work is in large part thanks to the federal government, and the America that works is mostly happening thanks to state polices. Here is a description of the dysfunctional half of America:

 

Its debt is rising, its population is ageing in a budget-threatening way, its schools are mediocre by international standards, its infrastructure rickety, its regulations dense, its tax code byzantine, its immigration system hare-brained—and it has fallen from first position in the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness rankings to seventh in just four years. Last year both Mr Obama and his election opponent, Mitt Romney, complained about the American dream slipping away. Today, the country’s main businesses sit on nearly $2 trillion in cash, afraid to invest in part because corporate bosses cannot imagine any of Washington’s feuding partisans fixing anything

.

 

But there’s also the America that works. It’s one starting to improve competitiveness without waiting for the federal government to do it for them. It’s composed of firms that aren’t waiting for the federal government to bail them out, and are instead going out and improving their

existing business, starting new ones, and getting ahead of the competition. Here is an example:

Although many countries possess big reserves of oil and gas trapped in impermeable rocks, American businesses worked out how to free that energy and then commercialised that technology at a rapid pace; the resulting “shale gale” is now billowing the economy’s sails.

Some of the money for fracking technology came from the federal government, but the shale revolution has largely happened despite Mr Obama and his tribe of green regulators. It has been driven from the bottom up—by entrepreneurs and by states like North Dakota competing to lure in investors with notably more fervour than, say, France.

 

The America that works is also one where states have understood that it is time to try (ever so timidly) a new model:

This fits a pattern. Pressed for cash, states are adopting sweeping reforms as they vie to attract investments and migrants. Louisiana and Nebraska want to abolish corporate and personal income taxes. Kansas has created a post called “the Repealer” to get rid of red tape and pays a “bounty” to high schools for every vocational qualification their students earn in certain fields; Ohio has privatised its economic-development agency; Virginia has just reformed its petrol-tax system.

In this second, can-do America, creative policymaking is being applied to the very problems Congress runs away from, like infrastructure spending. While the federal government twiddles its thumbs, states and cities, which are much shorter of cash, are coming up with new ways to raise money for roads, bridges and schools. Chicago has a special trust to drum up private funds to refurbish decrepit city buildings. Indiana has turned to privatisation to raise money for road-building.

 

 

I absolutely believe that the energy sector represents the best way to structurally improve our economy. I believe it has the potential to create millions of jobs throughout the U.S that are directly connected to this sector, whether it's through Drilling, building pipelines, manufacturing jobs related to energy sector parts, trucking, rail etc. Not to mention all the indirectly related jobs that would flourish as a result of these added jobs. And when you combine this with how it would impact energy prices not just at the consumer level, which would free up more disposable cash for more savings and spending, but also what it would do to lower costs for manufacturers, allowing more profits and wage increases.

 

It's a game changer.

 

No !@#$stick we hate the government mandating things.

 

Listen dipshit, I don't like many mandates either, but that doesn't make all mandates nonsensical. Your point of view has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with ideology. My argument is that inflation and the cost of living is rising and thatcorporations are flushed with cash and would be able to absorb the extra cost, and that I believe it would lead to a positive development for the economy.

 

Your argument is

 

"I hate government mandates"

Edited March 21, 2013 by Magox

[GG]

I didn't imply that it would "magically appear". I said that it would be transferred from employer to employee. And I would fully expect some of those increases to be passed down to the consumer. However, what I wouldn't expect is that the entirety of it would be passed down, there is enough competition and profit right now for some of those costs to be absorbed. Like I said earlier, I do believe there would have to be an honest study from neutral sources in looking into the impact of raising the minimum wage. From my perspective, I believe that a move to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour would be a net positive for the economy. I don't have any study or proof to support what I'm saying, other than my own intuition.

 

I sorta like the way the Germans view their relationships between employer and employee. I'm not saying I agree with everything they do, but there are certainly elements of their economy that we could look to.

 

As others stated, minimum wage jobs are mostly in industries that can only afford to pay minimum wage. By increasing the labor cost that is not tied to the businesses core expenses you artificailly set pricing and that will force more businesses into bankruptcy.

 

Plus, you didn't go to the BLS statistics did you? The data is pretty clear that mimimum wage jobs are clearly separated by industry, age, sex and marital status. Despite the cries, most minimum wage are for temporary jobs for younger employees. These jobs are not meant to be for family support. If there are still grown up heads of families in these jobs, then there are other issues involved that increasing their pay by $1 or $2 are going to solve. For instance, there's a growing amount of unmarried women working full-time at minimum wage. That's a societal problem, not an economic one. I can argue that it's a bigger problem that more women are having kids out of wedlock and then get stranded financially, and have to rely on low level work to raise a family. Of course that's a problem, but our society is based on a partnership arrangement in raising a family, one money earner and the other a caregiver. I think that a better solution is to get people away from minimum wage jobs than to artificially peg a salary.

 

Lastly, your tiered wage structure is completely unworkable, because it's insane to tie wages to the status of incorporation. You will also introduce a concept that's very familiar in many parts of Europe - the high prepoderance of companies with 49 employees, because by going to 50 employees adds a whole dimension of new regulations. When you artificially stifle growth like that, you fall into the Eurpoean sclerotic employment trap of perpetual 10%+ unemployment and no new companies or product categories created. No thank you.

[Chef Jim]

I absolutely believe that the energy sector represents the best way to structurally improve our economy. I believe it has the potential to create millions of jobs throughout the U.S that are directly connected to this sector, whether it's through Drilling, building pipelines, manufacturing jobs related to energy sector parts, trucking, rail etc. Not to mention all the indirectly related jobs that would flourish as a result of these added jobs. And when you combine this with how it would impact energy prices not just at the consumer level, which would free up more disposable cash for more savings and spending, but also what it would do to lower costs for manufacturers, allowing more profits and wage increases.

 

It's a game changer.

 

 

 

Listen dipshit, I don't like many mandates either, but that doesn't make all mandates nonsensical. Your point of view has nothing to do with pragmatism and everything to do with ideology. My argument is that inflation is rising, corporations are flushed with cash and would be able to absorb the extra cost, and would lead to a positve effect on the economy.

 

Your argument is

 

"I hate government mandates"

 

So your way of getting corporations that are flush with cash to release some of that cash is to give Jose the dishwasher a $2 raise.

[GG]

I absolutely believe that the energy sector represents the best way to structurally improve our economy. I believe it has the potential to create millions of jobs throughout the U.S that are directly connected to this sector, whether it's through Drilling, building pipelines, manufacturing jobs related to energy sector parts, trucking, rail etc. Not to mention all the indirectly related jobs that would flourish as a result of these added jobs. And when you combine this with how it would impact energy prices not just at the consumer level, which would free up more disposable cash for more savings and spending, but also what it would do to lower costs for manufacturers, allowing more profits and wage increases.

 

None of the industries you mention pay minimum wages to their employees.

[....lybob]

25 inch color TV in 1970 with remote $740 in 2012 money $4,315, a 26 inch TV today around $200 give or take - appliances have become cheaper, electronics have become much cheaper but not everything has become cheaper

 

 

Average Cost Of New Home Homes

1930 $3,845.00 , 1940 $3,920.00, 1950 $8,450.00 , 1960 $12,700.00 ,

1970 $23,450.00 , 1980 $68,700.00 , 1990 $123,000.00 , 2008 $238,880 ,

Average Wages

1930 $1,970.00 , 1940 $1,725.00, 1950 $3,210.00 , 1960 $5,315.00 ,

1970 $9,400.00 , 1980 $19,500.00 , 1990 $28,960.00 , 2008 $40,523 ,

Average Cost of New Car Cars

1930 $600.00 , 1940 $850.00, 1950 $1,510.00 , 1960 $2,600.00 ,

1970 $3,450.00 , 1980 $7,200.00 , 1990 $16,950.00 , 2008 $27,958 ,

Average Cost Gallon Of gas

1930 10 cents , 1940 11 cents , 1950 18 cents , 1960 25 cents ,

1970 36 cents , 1980 $1.19 , 1990 $1.34 , 2009 $2.051 ,

Average Cost Loaf of Bread Food

1930 9 cents , 1940 10 cents , 1950 12 cents , 1960 22 cents ,

1970 25 cents , 1980 50 cents , 1990 70 cents , 2008 $2.79 ,

Average Cost 1lb Hamburger Meat

1930 12 cents , 1940 20 cents , 1950 30 cents , 1960 45 cents ,

1970 70 cents , 1980 99 cents , 1990 89 cents , 2009 $3.99 ,

 

Both Health Care costs and college costs have increased much faster than wages or inflation

 

BTW the average age of a car in 1970 was 5.6 years in 2012 the average age is 11.1 years and I personally know no one who's getting a new car every 3 years, Chef must hang with a higher class of folk

 

getting back to the main point, the U.S. is seeing increasing wealth and income inequality together with decreasing social mobility and you'd have to be a dunce not to see that as a problem in a country who's basic narrative is anti-aristocracy , pragmatically increasing concentrations of wealth mean increasing concentrations of political power with that power being decreasingly disconnected with the plights of the masses. Under such conditions large numbers of the middle-class and below will feel increasingly disenfranchised from the normal political processes leading to everything from extreme apathy to extreme social unrest.

[RkFast]

getting back to the main point, the U.S. is seeing increasing wealth and income inequality together with decreasing social mobility and you'd have to be a dunce not to see that as a problem in a country who's basic narrative is anti-aristocracy , pragmatically increasing concentrations of wealth mean increasing concentrations of political power with that power being decreasingly disconnected with the plights of the masses. Under such conditions large numbers of the middle-class and below will feel increasingly disenfranchised from the normal political processes leading to everything from extreme apathy to extreme social unrest.

So the solution is higher taxes and suffocating fees for govt services on the middle class, an increased set of regulations that make even your kid opening a lemonade stand impossible, coupled with more and more handouts to people who don't contribute Dime One to the "system?" How does THAT compute?

[Magox]

So your way of getting corporations that are flush with cash to release some of that cash is to give Jose the dishwasher a $2 raise.

 

So now you are resorting to retarded comments? Seriously is that what you got out of what I said? Let's take a look at what I said:

 

My argument is that inflation and the cost of living is rising and that corporations are flushed with cash and would be able to absorb the extra cost, and that I believe it would lead to a positive development for the economy.

 

Doesn't seem to me that I was implying that it was THE "way" to get more money into the economy. I wasn't even making that point. I was speaking specifically to this issue. The point I made was two fold, one that the cost of living is rising for people and that an increase in wages would help their situation, and two that corporations are flushed with cash and that I believe are easily able to absorb these costs.

 

Also

 

It Doesn't have to be Jose, it could be Juan, Miguel, Pedro, hell it could even be John.

 

None of the industries you mention pay minimum wages to their employees.

 

Did I imply that it did? Where did you get this from?

[GG]

25 inch color TV in 1970 with remote $740 in 2012 money $4,315, a 26 inch TV today around $200 give or take - appliances have become cheaper, electronics have become much cheaper but not everything has become cheaper

 

 

Average Cost Of New Home Homes

1930 $3,845.00 , 1940 $3,920.00, 1950 $8,450.00 , 1960 $12,700.00 ,

1970 $23,450.00 , 1980 $68,700.00 , 1990 $123,000.00 , 2008 $238,880 ,

Average Wages

1930 $1,970.00 , 1940 $1,725.00, 1950 $3,210.00 , 1960 $5,315.00 ,

1970 $9,400.00 , 1980 $19,500.00 , 1990 $28,960.00 , 2008 $40,523 ,

Average Cost of New Car Cars

1930 $600.00 , 1940 $850.00, 1950 $1,510.00 , 1960 $2,600.00 ,

1970 $3,450.00 , 1980 $7,200.00 , 1990 $16,950.00 , 2008 $27,958 ,

Average Cost Gallon Of gas

1930 10 cents , 1940 11 cents , 1950 18 cents , 1960 25 cents ,

1970 36 cents , 1980 $1.19 , 1990 $1.34 , 2009 $2.051 ,

Average Cost Loaf of Bread Food

1930 9 cents , 1940 10 cents , 1950 12 cents , 1960 22 cents ,

1970 25 cents , 1980 50 cents , 1990 70 cents , 2008 $2.79 ,

Average Cost 1lb Hamburger Meat

1930 12 cents , 1940 20 cents , 1950 30 cents , 1960 45 cents ,

1970 70 cents , 1980 99 cents , 1990 89 cents , 2009 $3.99 ,

 

Both Health Care costs and college costs have increased much faster than wages or inflation

 

BTW the average age of a car in 1970 was 5.6 years in 2012 the average age is 11.1 years and I personally know no one who's getting a new car every 3 years, Chef must hang with a higher class of folk

 

getting back to the main point, the U.S. is seeing increasing wealth and income inequality together with decreasing social mobility and you'd have to be a dunce not to see that as a problem in a country who's basic narrative is anti-aristocracy , pragmatically increasing concentrations of wealth mean increasing concentrations of political power with that power being decreasingly disconnected with the plights of the masses. Under such conditions large numbers of the middle-class and below will feel increasingly disenfranchised from the normal political processes leading to everything from extreme apathy to extreme social unrest.

 

And out of the things that have gone up the most in your data sample, how many benefit from direct govrenment intervention?

 

Maybe now you will see the root of many of our complaints.

[birdog1960]

It isn't working? What exactly isn't working? All you point to is the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class. How does this translate into a challenge for the middle class? To me, it appears that the middle class is doing just fine. I was born 52 year ago next month so I have a half a century of first hand experience (crap I think I just ruined my day) with the middle class. When I was growing up did we have a TV in every room? Did each child have a computer, video console phone in their pocket? Did we get a new car every three years? No, we drove them typically until the rust came through the floorboards or they were about to blow up. No, I think the middle class is doing just fine. But if it makes you feel better to champion their "cause" go right ahead. It's so 2000 to vilify the rich. Question for you. How is the income gap between the rich and middle class adversely affecting the middle class?

it isn't working when 50 million people are on food stamps. it isn't working when over 1 million school kids are reported by their schools to be homeless. it isn't working when millions more go hungry on a regular basis. it isn't working when all this is going on and wealth is becoming even more concentrated.

[GG]

Did I imply that it did? Where did you get this from?

 

Maybe because you used it in an argument where you defend minimum wage? And the industries that have all the cash are not the ones which pay minimum wage.

 

If that wasn't your intention, it's a non sequitur worthy of EII

Edited March 21, 2013 by GG

[DC Tom]

Yes I get it, you hate the minimum wage.

 

No, he hates your idea.

 

And I don't blame him. It's a bad idea.

[RkFast]

it isn't working when 50 million people are on food stamps. it isn't working when over 1 million school kids are reported by their schools to be homeless. it isn't working when millions more go hungry on a regular basis. it isn't working when all this is going on and wealth is becoming even more concentrated.

Im sorry, that "food stamp" number and it being used to show who is really poor and hungry is a complete line of propaganda. I REFUSE to believe its accuracy when the FDA is running COMMERICALS to ENCOURAGE people to get on Food Stamps for nothing else but to "improve" their diet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1nv8G6UFfc

Edited March 21, 2013 by RkFast

[Magox]

As others stated, minimum wage jobs are mostly in industries that can only afford to pay minimum wage. By increasing the labor cost that is not tied to the businesses core expenses you artificailly set pricing and that will force more businesses into bankruptcy.

 

Plus, you didn't go to the BLS statistics did you? The data is pretty clear that mimimum wage jobs are clearly separated by industry, age, sex and marital status. Despite the cries, most minimum wage are for temporary jobs for younger employees. These jobs are not meant to be for family support. If there are still grown up heads of families in these jobs, then there are other issues involved that increasing their pay by $1 or $2 are going to solve. For instance, there's a growing amount of unmarried women working full-time at minimum wage. That's a societal problem, not an economic one. I can argue that it's a bigger problem that more women are having kids out of wedlock and then get stranded financially, and have to rely on low level work to raise a family. Of course that's a problem, but our society is based on a partnership arrangement in raising a family, one money earner and the other a caregiver. I think that a better solution is to get people away from minimum wage jobs than to artificially peg a salary.

 

Lastly, your tiered wage structure is completely unworkable, because it's insane to tie wages to the status of incorporation. You will also introduce a concept that's very familiar in many parts of Europe - the high prepoderance of companies with 49 employees, because by going to 50 employees adds a whole dimension of new regulations. When you artificially stifle growth like that, you fall into the Eurpoean sclerotic employment trap of perpetual 10%+ unemployment and no new companies or product categories created. No thank you.

 

That's fine, you believe it would stifle growth, I don't. Secondly I know that when I go to a fast food restaurant, there are many people who are working there that aren't teenagers and I assume that many of these people have families. So I don't care that you believe it was "intended" for teenagers, the reality is that there are many people who don't fall under your criteria of who should hold these jobs. In regards to family solving societal problems, sure I think that's important, and that would be the ideal situation, but it's not realistic. You can talk about "should" all day long, and I will agree with that, but you will never see your ideal "should" scenario play out in your life time.

 

It's simple.

 

I believe that it won't stifle growth, that it won't effect profits much for most corporations and that I believe it will benefit employees earning minimum wage, and I believe it will produce positive effects on the economy.

[birdog1960]

<p>

That's ridiculous. Everyone with an IQ over 50 has the answer for how to lose weight. The problem is that people lack the self control to implement the solution. But in your world, that makes them victims.

 

have you ever noticed that snake oil salesmen sell stuff for ailments conventional medicine can't effectively treat? like baldness, hangovers and obesity. look at the industry that's developed around obesity. how many could stay in business if there truly was a simple fix? maybe you didn't understand my synopsis of the lecture: weight loss programs, even involving diet and exercise, are inherently contradictory to innate feedback mechanisms developed evolutionarily. any currently available method is fighting the bodies natural tendencies. can it be done? yes, but the vast majority that attempt it fail.

[Magox]

Maybe because you used it in an argument where you defend minimum wage? And the industries that have all the cash are not the ones which pay minimum wage.

 

If that wasn't your intention, it's a non sequitur worthy of EII

 

No, I was responding to BB's comment, and I wanted to offer my opinion on energy... And then I responded to another comment.

[RkFast]

 

I believe that it won't stifle growth, that it won't effect profits much for most corporations and that I believe it will benefit employees earning minimum wage, and I believe it will produce positive effects on the economy.

The MW has been raised plenty of times with the above argument as a basis for doing so. Please illustrate from the last time the MW went up that the above took place. Thank you in advance.

[Magox]

No, he hates your idea.

 

And I don't blame him. It's a bad idea.

 

No, he hates minimum wage and my idea. Same thing.

 

In regards to it being a bad idea. I disagree with you all.

 

The MW has been raised plenty of times with the above argument as a basis for doing so. Please illustrate from the last time the MW went up that the above took place. Thank you in advance.

 

Please illustrate to me how when they did raise the minimum wage it stifled growth. The burden of proof is on you.

 

Thank you in advance.

[DC Tom]

No, he hates minimum wage and my idea. Same thing.

 

In regards to it being a bad idea. I disagree with you all.

 

Well, obviously...but it seems to me that TYTT is right in that it creates a sort of minimum-wage caste hierarchy in the interests of trying to avoid a shock to the economy (which I'm not convinced it would prevent anyway), when the traditional manner of phasing the increase in over a period of time would probably work just as well.

 

Which is all, of course, completely beside the ridiculous idea that increasing minimum wage somehow magically eliminates poverty, which I'm still waiting for whoever-it-was with the cheeseburger-based economic theory to adequately explain,

[Chef Jim]

25 inch color TV in 1970 with remote $740 in 2012 money $4,315, a 26 inch TV today around $200 give or take - appliances have become cheaper, electronics have become much cheaper but not everything has become cheaper

 

 

Average Cost Of New Home Homes

1930 $3,845.00 , 1940 $3,920.00, 1950 $8,450.00 , 1960 $12,700.00 ,

1970 $23,450.00 , 1980 $68,700.00 , 1990 $123,000.00 , 2008 $238,880 ,

Average Wages

1930 $1,970.00 , 1940 $1,725.00, 1950 $3,210.00 , 1960 $5,315.00 ,

1970 $9,400.00 , 1980 $19,500.00 , 1990 $28,960.00 , 2008 $40,523 ,

Average Cost of New Car Cars

1930 $600.00 , 1940 $850.00, 1950 $1,510.00 , 1960 $2,600.00 ,

1970 $3,450.00 , 1980 $7,200.00 , 1990 $16,950.00 , 2008 $27,958 ,

Average Cost Gallon Of gas

1930 10 cents , 1940 11 cents , 1950 18 cents , 1960 25 cents ,

1970 36 cents , 1980 $1.19 , 1990 $1.34 , 2009 $2.051 ,

Average Cost Loaf of Bread Food

1930 9 cents , 1940 10 cents , 1950 12 cents , 1960 22 cents ,

1970 25 cents , 1980 50 cents , 1990 70 cents , 2008 $2.79 ,

Average Cost 1lb Hamburger Meat

1930 12 cents , 1940 20 cents , 1950 30 cents , 1960 45 cents ,

1970 70 cents , 1980 99 cents , 1990 89 cents , 2009 $3.99 ,

 

Both Health Care costs and college costs have increased much faster than wages or inflation

 

BTW the average age of a car in 1970 was 5.6 years in 2012 the average age is 11.1 years and I personally know no one who's getting a new car every 3 years, Chef must hang with a higher class of folk

 

getting back to the main point, the U.S. is seeing increasing wealth and income inequality together with decreasing social mobility and you'd have to be a dunce not to see that as a problem in a country who's basic narrative is anti-aristocracy , pragmatically increasing concentrations of wealth mean increasing concentrations of political power with that power being decreasingly disconnected with the plights of the masses. Under such conditions large numbers of the middle-class and below will feel increasingly disenfranchised from the normal political processes leading to everything from extreme apathy to extreme social unrest.

 

Take a look at all the new cars around you. Maybe it's a California thing. So we are headed for extreme apathy and social unrest? Where the !@#$ you do you guys get this ****. Please explain how today's middle class is suffering because the wealthy make too much money. Sounds like all these extremely rich CEO's that are making gazillions are running companies that are building/creating and selling things that are.....gasp!! cheaper today.

 

it isn't working when 50 million people are on food stamps. it isn't working when over 1 million school kids are reported by their schools to be homeless. it isn't working when millions more go hungry on a regular basis. it isn't working when all this is going on and wealth is becoming even more concentrated.

 

I thought you were talking about the middle class. Make up your mind.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well, obviously...but it seems to me that TYTT is right in that it creates a sort of minimum-wage caste hierarchy in the interests of trying to avoid a shock to the economy (which I'm not convinced it would prevent anyway), when the traditional manner of phasing the increase in over a period of time would probably work just as well.

 

Which is all, of course, completely beside the ridiculous idea that increasing minimum wage somehow magically eliminates poverty, which I'm still waiting for whoever-it-was with the cheeseburger-based economic theory to adequately explain,

Actually, I oppose the minimum wage; but I don't hate it. I think it does more harm than good.

 

With that said, I do hate Magox's idea, because caste systems are bad; and his idea is terrible.