8.08.2009

Obama Has Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**

One thing I don’t quite get has been the White House’s reluctance to highlight the non-infrastructure parts of the stimulus package. Oh sure, people wanted more investment in roads and trains and energy grids and all that good stuff – I did too, and thought the stimulus package spent an inadequate amount of money on them. But you’re left with the impression that the rest of the stimulus was just thrown down a well somewhere. In fact, it was not. The extension in unemployment benefits that the government provided under the stimulus, for instance, is turning out to be highly useful to a lot of people. I don’t necessarily expect the people receiving extended unemployment insurance to turn around and write Obama a thank-you note – but the White House might want to at least occasionally make the point it’s their initiative that is helping them to keep putting food on the table.

Likewise with the tax reductions in the stimulus – which collectively made up $288 billion, or about 37 percent of the package. Most of those tax cuts are targeted at individuals. And while the they aren’t terribly deep, they are impressively broad.

The broadest tax cut in the stimulus package is the “Making Work Pay” tax credit, worth about $116.2 billion (see the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center for this and other figures) and applicable to the vast majority of working Americans. Indeed, all single filers making less than $95,000 and all joint filers making less than $190,000 are eligible for this tax cut. Most of them, in fact, are already receiving it in the form of lower withholding on their paychecks.

The well-to-do are benefiting too – or at least they will once it comes time to file their taxes next April. That’s because, as part of the stimulus, the government extended the alternative minimum tax (AMT) “patch”, which reduces the tax burden for some 24-26 million Americans who would be subject to the AMT. Most people who would be hit by the AMT are doing pretty well. The median income among people who would be subject to the AMT is about $130,000, and the average is about $165,000. This has the convenient property, though, of starting to kick in right where the “Making Work Pay” credit phases out, meaning that a great number of Americans who won't benefit from former program will benefit from the latter one.

Finally, there are a number of smaller tax rebates and credits that are more highly targeted – to buyers of new cars and new homes, to small businesses, to low-income families with children, to the unemployed, and so forth. We’ll focus principally on one of these, which is the credit for new car purchases.

But first – what do I mean by “working households”? By “households”, I mean simply tax filers. There were about 143 million individual or joint income tax returns filed in 2007, according to the IRS (this is the most recent year for which statistics are available). By “working” I mean that the taxpayer had some sort of taxable income, which was true of about 111 million of the 143 million returns.

This is different than saying that 95+ percent of all Americans will receive a tax cut. Barack Obama sometimes confused his language about this on the campaign trail. He was wrong when he did so. Illegal immigrants, some non-working individuals and families, some retirees, etc. will not be assisted by any of the tax cuts. It’s also somewhat ambiguous whether, say, a 7-year-old kid is considered as having had his taxes cut if his daddy is having less withheld from his paycheck.

But more often, Obama used phrases like “working taxpayers” or “working families” when referring to his tax cuts on the campaign trail. This is a promise that Obama has kept.

Let’s take a look at the tax cuts contained in the stimulus package in a little bit more detail. First is the Making Work Pay tax credit. As I mentioned, this applies to single filers making less than $95,000 and joint filers making less than $190,000. Using the IRS tax tables that I linked to earlier, this means that about 102 million taxpayers, or about 92.4 percent of “working” tax filers, will be eligible for the credit.

Then there’s the AMT reduction. The Tax Policy Center has helpfully estimated the percentage of Americans who are subject to the AMT by income bracket. For instance, about 79.2 percent of earners between $100,000 and $200,000 should be subject to the AMT by this time, according to estimates that the Tax Policy Center put together a couple of years ago. All told, this works out to about 24 million tax filers according to the estimates that I linked to above, or 26 million according to newer (but unfortunately much less detailed) estimates. If we perform this calculation for each income bracket based on the 24 million figure, this includes about 6.8 million tax filers who are not eligible for the Making Work Pay tax credit.

That leaves only about 1.6 million working tax filers who will not benefit from either the Making Work Pay credit or the AMT patch. And most of them are out of luck, since while there are a number of other tax cuts in the stimulus package, most of them phase outs at amounts equal to or lower than the threshold for Making Work Pay. One exception, however, is the deduction for the purchase of new vehicles, which doesn’t completely phase out until $135,000 for single filers and $260,000 for couples.

The automobile purchase credit operates by allowing taxpayers who buy new vehicles to deduct state and local sales taxes from the amount they owe to the IRS – something they ordinarily can’t do. The average new car purchased today costs about $25,000 before sales taxes, which at prevailing sales tax rates of about 5 percent, means that it comes with an additional $1,250 sales tax burden. Allowing people to make an “above the line” deduction on these sales taxes should reduce their tax burden by about 30 percent of $1,250, or $375. Since the total amount allocated to this tax credit is $1.7 billion, this implies that about 4.5 million people will benefit from it, or about 4.3 percent of the tax filers who are eligible for it.

What we’re concerned with, though, in evaluating the breadth of the tax cuts, are people who are eligible for the auto purchase credit but who weren’t eligible for Making Work Pay and who didn’t benefit from the AMT patch. This will be the fraction of individual filers making between $95,000 and $135,000 and joint filers making between $190,000 and $260,000 who were not subject to the AMT – a rather small number of people. We can probably assume, however, that participation rates will be higher in this group, since they’re making good money and are more likely to be able to afford a new car. Specifically, we’ll guess that the participation rate among this group will be 8.6 percent, twice the average of 4.3 percent. This works out to another 80,000 tax filers or so who had not been eligible for one of the other tax credits.

Adding everything up, I come up with about 98.6 percent of working tax filers – see upthread for how I caveated that description – who are eligible for one or more of these tax cuts. This is before accounting for any direct or indirect benefit from the various small business tax credits, or from oddball circumstances like when a high-income earner avoids the phase-out for the home purchase tax credit because they book it on their 2008 return.



(See here for a higher resolution version with a bit of additional detail.)

A recent Rasmussen poll found that just 15 percent of likely voters believed that "President Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans". Technially, they're wrong -- Obama has not cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. But he has done so for in excess of 98 pecent of "working" tax households. It's time for the White House to start taking a little credit for having done so.

166 comments

Nathan said...

I suspect the White House is holding this card for use closer to election time ...

markymark said...

I think this is a very valuable article in many ways. One it shows that amongst all the hullabaloo of the stimulus, a lot of it was low level common sense stuff, that affects ordinary Americans in there everyday life.

Secondly it shows that the Democratic Party knows how to cut taxes, and does it sometimes, when it is applicable to the problem faced.

I think one thing that I think the Obama administration could do a little bit better is to trumpet its own successes a little more aggresively. I think the likes of Fox News is going to do a pretty good job of hammering away at the weaknesses of the Obama administration, and really a lot of the time MSNBC seems to spend its time hammering away at Fox and the GOP. I think the Obama administration needs to start pushing out its triumphs more effectively.

SarahLawrenceScott said...

I agree with the basic point of your post, but I think taking credit for the AMT patch as a "tax cut" is a bit of a stretch. Congress always passes that patch; it would be perceived as a massive tax increase if they didn't do so.

Steven said...

It's possible that Obama has neglected to focus on this b/c he is still considering raising taxes via the upcoming health bill or some other deficit-reduction initiative. He would win news cycles by focusing on the tax cuts TODAY, but could come across as inconsistent if in 2-3 months, he's passing a major tax increase.

I'm not trying to make a value judgment in there; just trying to figure out why he hasn't focused on it to date.

STepper said...

This is pure propaganda. I know it's hard to refrain from this kind of stuff. But as I repeatedly pointed out during Bush Jr.'s 8 years of disaster, every tax deficit was a tax increase. Somebody has to pay for it.

Steven said...

@STepper:

As long as the economy grows at a good rate, growth in tax receipts can roll over the debt perpetually. A budget deficit in the present does not necessarily mean a tax increase in the future. It may or it may not, but the rate of GDP growth is a better indicator.

Bart DePalma said...

Making Work Pay is not a tax rate cut, it is a temporary direct cash payment made through the tax system, which was commonly known as a rebate when Bush did it in 2001. The reason that most folks do not realize that they are even receiving a MWP rebate is that the amount is tiny - suitable for buying "cupcakes and stuff" as Obama noted in a speech last week. Tiny rebates are economically useless as we found out in 2001-2003.

Delaying the imposition of additional AMT taxes is not a tax cut. BTW, this was not even an Obama proposal. Congress has been enacting these patches since the AMT started hitting upper middle class Dem districts.

Finally, the deduction for auto purchases is what most folks would call a special interest tax loophole or corporate welfare depending upon your viewpoint.

Brian Jenkins said...

Nate, what about the increase in tobacco taxes? The S-CHIP expansion (passed on February 4, became low on April 1) increased the federal tax on cigarettes from 39 cents to $1 per pack, with similar increases on most other forms of tobacco. This could cancel out the Making Work Pay credit for low-income people who smoke.

Michael said...

Not sure if Obama wants to take credit for this or not but my tax bill has been cut 100%!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm unemployed.

PorridgeGun said...

Nathan said...

I suspect the White House is holding this card for use closer to election time ...



They fucking well better... and when they do, it better be a huge media blitz.


But, to be honest, I can't figure out Obama and his advisers at all, particularly Axelrod, who I've never liked. I'm still waiting on those attacks ads going after McCain for not supporting Jim Webb's G.I. bill then taking credit for it weeks later.

Honestly, with someone like Obama as the Dem nominee, even Bob Shrum could have won the last election.

stop_the_stutter said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John said...

Hmmm - I must be in that 1.4% of the population whose taxes have not been affected (actually, they've gone *up* slightly in the past six months).

I agree with the premise of the article though: since I didn't see any effect on my paycheck, I wasn't even aware tax cuts had been enacted; i.e., no effective publicity on this item.

Juris said...

There are a couple of other tax breaks that will apply to people who buy strategically.

I recently bought a Ford Fusion Hybrid. Not only will I benefit from being able to deduct my state sales tax -- for net benefit of about $600 off of my federal taxes -- but I will get a $1,700 federal tax credit for buying this particular car.

If only I had qualified for cash-for-clunkers. Alas, the 13 year-old junker that I 'traded in' had an EPA rating of 20 mpg.

Nate, those who are getting lower withholding now may not notice the tax breaks as readily as those of us who are going to get a very nice cash benefit when we file our 2009 income taxes. (And yes, I am grateful for the AMT patch as well, as otherwise I'd fall into that hole.)

If the stock market continues its sinuous ways back to some reasonable level, there's going to be a pretty strong "wealth effect" for those with investments (including 401K's). And that, too, may get people a little bit more back into "dissaving" from current income.

The biggest problem from a political standpoint is unemployment. Next will be continued languishing of home and commercial mortgage markets -- and continuing foreclosures. And everybody ought to be thoroughly pissed off at the banks' credit card lending practices -- I hope Congress will revisit this early next year.

STepper said...

Steven wrote:

"As long as the economy grows at a good rate, growth in tax receipts can roll over the debt perpetually. A budget deficit in the present does not necessarily mean a tax increase in the future. It may or it may not, but the rate of GDP growth is a better indicator."

Not correct. All that means is that we as well as our children are paying for it. The tax increase comes from paying for the interest on the increased debt. And that money cannot be used for something else.

This justification was used by Reagan and Bush, Jr. economists to justify huge deficits. Republicans embraced the argument during their tenures. (And who benefitted from the huge deficits? The wealthy. To Republicans "freedom" means the ability to make huge amounts of money and get ultra rich. The base of the Republican Party wouldn't know it, but their leaders are actually plutocrats!)

While the Republicans embraced your argument during Reagan and Bush Jr., they seem to have amnesia now.

Matt said...

@Bart:

It's tough to parse your semantic quibbling. I'm figuring either:

1. If the government collects money from you, it's a tax; if it cuts the amount of money it takes from you, it's a "direct cash payment," or some other newly invented phrase--not a tax cut; or
b. If a Republican does it, it's a tax cut; if a Democrat does it, it isn't.

Have I pretty much divined your philosophy?

I certainly do appreciate every time you bring something of value to the discussion.

Jen said...

Brian Jenkins-

Maybe if we can pass some health care for low income smokers they can afford some of the really great anti-smoking systems out there. My HMO stupidly didn't cover them, but it was worth it to me to pay out of pocket. Of course, if Obama did anything that helped people stop smoking the Republicans would be screaming that he was putting an industry out of business!

Most Republican politicians don't care if an industry is in the business to kill people like health insurance and tobacco, it just has to be protected for the precious stockholders.

Rudy said...

So, by the same logic that extending the existing AMT tax benefit equals a tax cut, NOT extending the Bush tax cuts constitutes a tax increase.

Do they really think people are going to believe their little shell game? Desperation is setting in early this term.

Juris said...

Rudy, you're missing the larger point. "Not" extending the Bush tax cuts is mainly going to hurt the rich. Having this is also a wonderful bargaining chip for the Dems who might be willing to make a sort of trade: OK, we'll keep some of those benefits for the rich but in return we're going to set some new tax brackets at and above 1 M.

Jen said...

By the way, wish me luck. I am going to my Republican representative's town hall today to discuss health care reform. Maybe if people hear how our health insurance system is killing people like me, they will change their minds.

I have no hope on changing Ed Royce's mind of course, but maybe in 2010 if I am still around I can celebrate him being out of office for putting the insurance companies ahead of his constituents.

Steven said...

@STepper:

I will respectfully disagree. The political system makes criticism of budget deficits attractive. Why? Because tax cuts and social services generally poll well. The opposition party looks for a weapon against those things. So when Republicans are out of power, they are reliable critics of deficit spending. (I tend to think this is an element of politics, not party.)

I was once a deficit-hawk, but my mind was changed after doing some reading on the subject. The best concise argument I ever read came from Steve Conover (not me):

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/06/money_the_econo.html

Extending on his argument, growth is the key. We're facing massive budget shortfalls in entitlement spending--the only way to cover those shortfalls is with growth. The political will does not exist to cut those programs down to a more sustainable size. And no tax base can support the Boomers' retirement sustainably.

Moreover, there probably IS a level of debt which is unsustainable. I'm not sure what that level is, but we've done OK in that 40-80% of GDP range. So it's not necessarily hypocritical to support some debt but not a LOT of debt (though, again, in the case of the Republicans, I think a lot of it is politics, not economics).

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

@Steven: it's not true that the ONLY way to address increasing entitlement costs is by reducing entitlements and/or increasing economic growth.

As has been mentioned on this blog, and also recently in the news, raising the maximum income levels for required social security taxes to be paid (from the present ca. $104K to $1M or more -- even 'all the way') would contribute mightily to the financial viability of Social Security. By one estimate, it could postpone the day of reckoning 75 years into the future.

Bob said...

Just a minor point: You cannot use illegal immigrants as a counter-example to "95+ percent of all Americans". They are, by definition, not Americans.

Pragmatus said...

I think this week was a big one for the president. The North Korea negotiations were a stunning success, as was the Sotomayor confirmation, and, at the end of the week, encouraging economic news.

The Sotomayor confirmation revealed everything wrong and silly about the GOP. It’s hard not to equate Mel Martinez’s resignation with his probable disgust over what his party did with her nomination, and its subsequent future electoral repercussions. As Adam here so eloquently puts it, the business of the Republican Party has come down to screaming as loud as they can. No argument, no reasoned discourse, no framing of alternatives—just screaming.

In this I heartily encourage him. Nothing could be better for the future of America than a constant, irritating howl coming from the Party of No. One by one people are finding ways of tuning them out, until eventually the only audience for their screeching will be each other.

Steven said...

@Juris:

That's a very fair point. I definitely overextended that segment of my argument, then. Thanks for keeping me honest.

Pragmatus said...

Juris…

A minor quibble, but an important one—abolishing the maximum income levels on Social Security taxes would make the program solvent forever. This is according to the GAO.

The phony “insolvency” of Social Security has been a terrific red herring for the GOP, who have managed, thanks to Karl Rove and his ilk, to stir up this “bankruptcy” fear amongst the very people who are getting screwed by this most regressive of all taxes. Anybody who makes less than $100,000 a year is paying more in FICA taxes than someone who makes more than $100,000. The solution is simply to remove the shelter by which millionaires shirk the responsibility borne by everybody else.

People, never forget what the GOP wants to do with your Social Security. Few realize how close we came to having that entire system destroyed by the Republican Party, in its push throughout George W. Bush’s term to “privatize Social Security”. Remember their catchphrase? “It’s your money, you should be able to do with it what you think is best.”

If they had succeeded, and everyone had rushed to Wall Street with their retirement money, how much worse do you think the recent economic crisis would have been?

The catchphrase from this moment forward should be: “It’s your money. The Republicans want to take it away from you and give it to their pals. Is that what you really want?”

The sign to watch out for, which will demonstrate that another GOP-orchestrated raid on your retirement pocketbook is in the works, are the words “Social Security” coming out of any Republican officeholder’s mouth.

Jen said...

Anybody who makes less than $100,000 a year is paying more in FICA taxes than someone who makes more than $100,000.

Aren't we double taxed on FICA also?

Pragmatus said...

I must add, the same people who wanted to destroy Social Security by privatizing it are the ones screaming loudest against reforming health insurance .

This point needs to be harped on incessantly. It’s the only way to wake the working and middle classes up to what the GOP is trying to do to them.

Pragmatus said...

Jen…

I don’t know the answer to that, but that would be the topic for another discussion.

The plain and simple fact is that the Social Security checks paid to, say, the multimillionaire George Herbert Walker Bush (the retired president, and yes, he does in fact insist on collecting his Social Security checks) are being subsidized by every low- and middle-income wage earner in this country.

Steven said...

@Pragmatus:

I don't think your view on Social Security is unjustifiable. But I do think that we should at least stop and think about why it's capped in the first place. Social Security was not designed to be a welfare system; it was designed as an insurance system.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/06/make_the_rich_pay_more.cfm

http://american.com/archive/2009/obama-vs-fdr

Again, you (and President Obama) are justified in thinking that way; it's perfectly reasonable. But there is an honest, good-faith objection to raising the cap.

Juris said...

@Pragmatus: nice posts. I suspect Obama and Dems will start clubbing the GOP over Social Security as we move into 2010 and election season.

I also suspect there will be rather extensive discussions and debates over the entire issue of tax burden and progressivity -- not only regarding healthcare but also social security and tax brackets more generally.

Since the "default" position on income taxes is that the Bush cuts will expire, the Democrats hold most of the cards if they decide to reopen this subject in exchange for a real tradeoff on social security.

Jen said...

Pragmatus, how I understand it (which could be completely wrong) is that it is taken out at the same time as your other taxes, unlike your health benefits or 401K deductions. It is still part of your income when your taxes are assessed thus people are being taxed on their social security benefits before they ever receive them. Under a certain income threshold (I think it is around 50K, it was so long ago, I really am not sure at all on the number), you pay more in FICA than income taxes.

Whoever, upthread who said that the income cap for FICA ought to be removed is right on.

Pragmatus said...

Jen…

Please fill us in on what happens at the “Town Hall” with Royce. This sort of forum is the one picked by the GOP to advance their “government takeover of healthcare” meme, by stocking them full of talking-points screamers.

Hold your ground. Don’t take “No” for an answer.

Pragmatus said...

Steven…

The reason a cap on income was put into FICA taxes was in order to get Social Security through Congress in the 1930s. (It’s been there since the first day—look it up.) Millionaires had even more clout then than they do now, thanks to the “smoke-filled room” by which most politics and legislative deal-making of the era was accomplished.

Any arguments that have cropped up later, such as those you cite, have nothing to do with the original purpose of the cap. We have all heard over and over how any increase in taxes will destroy entrepreneurship, hobble innovation, crush the business spirit etc. These are no more than straw arguments. In fact we have a very recent example of the opposite being true—after Clinton raised taxes we were treated to the longest, largest economic boom in the nation’s history.

The FICA cap was put in place to mollify certain wealthy people; the question now is, do we want to continue to placate them, or put Social Security on a stable financial footing for all time to come?

I say the question answers itself.

hetrism: Religious doctrine wherein there is no such thing as gay people

Rudy said...

Let the clubbing over social security begin. Never has a program so screwed over the people paying into the system with aggregiously sub-market returns. It is, and has always been, a Ponzi scheme that would make Madoff blush.

Any meaningful analysis of SS makes it readily apparent that anyone young now would be far better off being able to put the same money into a 401-K.

But it is highly unlikely that discussion will be able to progress beyond the trite political fearmongering.

Pragmatus said...

Steven…

Addendum…

If the concern over abolishing the income cap on FICA taxes is genuine, then there is an alternate solution which removes most of the regression. Abolish the cap, but reduce all FICA taxes so that the revenue currently going to the government stays the same. This would shift the tax burden off the poorer and distribute it more equitably across the entire income spectrum. But you know what? Even this proposal is excoriated and denounced by the rich. Why? Because all their arguments are based on only one principle, which is to keep themselves from paying as little as possible to the common good.

Jen said...

"Any meaningful analysis of SS makes it readily apparent that anyone young now would be far better off being able to put the same money into a 401-K."

I know all those people who have put off retirement because their 401K tanked feel the same way as they bite their nails praying to god that they are not laid off anyway and have to pay $600 a month for COBRA while trying to find a job in their fifties or sixties when most companies prefer to hire someone my age.

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

If you learned to spell “egregiously”, or could overcome your laziness long enough to bother to look it up, perhaps people would listen to your arguments. But let me try and enlighten you a tad.

You hear the joke some comedians tell nowadays?

“Yeah, I had a 401k, but after the market crash now it’s a 201k.”

All the retirement money you think would have been so secure in IRAs would have been pissed away in the market meltdown.

Juris said...

@Rudy: as between 401K and SS, the point of SS is that it's a safety net, not designe to be an adequate retirement fund. There's a place for both types of programs.

As for me, I've been paying into a 401K for 34 years. If I only had to rely on that and I retired today, my income would be cut by 60%. But with social security and my 401K, it will only be cut by some 30%.

Of course there are good and bad 401K's (and good and bad ways to control the investment within them) Mine is a good one. I did OK with how I allocated the money. I could be much worse off. And on average nobody has done particularly well in them over the last ten years.

markymark said...

I know this is off topic BUT

This has me outraged, how can this kind of lie be so egregiously allowed to stand

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32340009/ns/politics-white_house/

Where at all in ANY bill is this proposed? And how is this really any different from the current system, whereby someone can be saddled with outrageous healthcare costs by HMOs without recourse to appeal?


Grrrr this kind of accusation is the sort of thing that makes my blood boil.

I suppose its possible that a more significant name, like Palin, making the accusation, may force those in support of the public option to show exactly how much rubbish Palin's comment actually is.

Jen said...

I try to not say anything nasty, but after reading your link markymark, if there was euthanasia in one of these health plans that stupid skank better hope there is a cure for stupidity because otherwise she will be the first one that gets pushed out on that ice floe.

Can't her 15 minutes be up yet? Why must we as a nation be exposed to such stupidity. She is like a walking talking Vh1 show.

Saint Dude said...

A good synopsis of social security can be found at:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp206.html

A young worker that stays healthy his entire working life, is forced to contribute to a 401K at the same rate that he currently pays in FICA tax (which only partially goes to social security), and is fortunate enough to not retire in the midst of an economic downturn, would be marginally better off not contributing to SS.

However, if he dies or becomes disabled, suffers through significant patches of unemployment, or retires during an economic downturn, he (or his family) will be substantially better off with the current SS system.

SS is not simply an investment. It is also a major insurance program providing both life and disability insurance. It is also one of the few investment vehicles that are backed by the U.S. government.

A better comparison to the return on investment in SS would be to compare the return to a whole life insurance policy, with added disability insurance, and invested in a guaranteed asset class such as government bonds.

When you do that comparison, you see that SS is a tremendous return on investment.

Bart DePalma said...

Matt said...

@Bart: If the government collects money from you, it's a tax; if it cuts the amount of money it takes from you, it's a "direct cash payment," or some other newly invented phrase--not a tax cut

The MWP is no different than any other government welfare transfer of wealth payment. It is not a tax cut because it is short term, does not reduce your tax rates and is given regardless of whether you actually pay any net taxes. Just because the IRS delivers the payment does not make it a tax cut.

or b. If a Republican does it, it's a tax cut; if a Democrat does it, it isn't.

As I pointed out, when Bush did the same thing, it was called a rebate. It was not a tax cut when Bush made these payments in 2001 and is not one now when Obama does the same thing.

During his campaign, Obama promised a real tax cut permanently reducing tax rates:

"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s."

However, Obama never actually offered legislation to accomplish his promised tax cut and instead signed off on the Dem Congress' temporary rebates and called them his tax cut.

Mikeybackwards said...

I am one of those receiving extended unemployment benefits. I was made redundant when my employer outsourced the company's payroll and benefits function (I worked and supervised a department with one other full-time staff member and one part-time staff member). I will exhaust those extended benefits, my savings, and my severance package in roughly 6 weeks. However, I would already be homeless if it had not been for Obama's and the Democrats work in pushing through the extended benefits.

In the 10 months since my unemployment, I have spent roughly $200 per week preparing and sending out resume packets (approximately 6 per day to companies both in and out of my residential area) plus spend, on average, 2 additional hours searching the internet for companies that are hiring to which I might apply. In that time I have only been able to find one short-term contract position that lasted for 7 days (doing a payroll audit for a company facing a wage and hour lawsuit). This is even though I have a college degree, am a member of a professional organization, and have almost 20 years experience in accounting, payroll, HR, and benefits administration.

While I am very grateful for the assistance, I fear it will not be enough and I know that soon I will not be able to maintain the level of job search I have been doing, indeed may find myself homeless, and without transportation. Needless to say, healthcare is a luxury I can no longer afford.

Pragmatus said...

markymark…

The only people who would respond favorably to Palin’s puke (here) are those who don’t need to be convinced of the virtues of the GOP. This is actually a pretty small crowd, and diminishing as we speak.

I doubt her message will resonate favorably amongst independents or younger voters.

We have to trust that people, on the whole, are not dumb enough to swallow her crap unquestioningly. We are fortunate to have a very eloquent spokesman—President Obama—to explain the other side.

fible: Bible for liars.

Saint Dude said...

"..when Bush did the same thing, it was called a rebate."

Bush did not do the same thing, instead he sent out 1 time rebate checks. Those were largely saved and stimulated economic activity for only a couple of months.

The "comparable" tax cuts in the stimulus bill show up every single paycheck for 93% of workers, and continue coming for years.

You may argue that the cuts are too small, or you may argue that all tax cuts should be permanent (since they are magical tooth fairy money - the more you give the more you make), but to say they are the same as Bush's is just silly.

If you don't like your tax cut please return the money to the IRS so as not to burden your grandchildren.

markymark said...

I'll try and make sure this is my last comment on the OT stuff. But Prag and Jen, my main concern I guess is that Palin has a lot of following with these teabagger types, and this is just asking for them to get more and more involved in swirling lies around in these meetings. And lets face it they don't really need the temperature rising with such intermperate language. To a large extent its the tenner of the language that bugs me more than the actual comments. It'd be tooo much to hope for someone within the GOP to come in and criticise the language I suppose!

I hope that someone has kept a record of Palin's comments, so that if the time comes they can be used against her.

Jen said...

Mikeybackwards, I am very sorry to hear about everything going on with you. I can only imagine your frustration. Isn't there a bill or ammendment before congress to further extend umemployment benefits?

Best of luck to you.

Jen said...

Markymark, I leave for a Republican reps town hall meeting in about 20 minutes to tell my story of how my health insurance delays caused my cancer to advance to Stage 4. I think we need to change the debate from the system is failing to it has failed so many of us.

I am hoping the fact that I am bald, frail, and partially visually impaired from chemo is enough that I won't get shouted down by some rabid winger.

Bart DePalma said...

Saint Dude said...

BD: "..when Bush did the same thing, it was called a rebate."

Bush did not do the same thing, instead he sent out 1 time rebate checks. Those were largely saved and stimulated economic activity for only a couple of months. The "comparable" tax cuts in the stimulus bill show up every single paycheck for 93% of workers, and continue coming for years.


A distinction without a difference.

Bush sent out one payment, while the Dem Congress broke the payments into tiny parts over two years under the theory that tiny parts are somehow more stimulative than one payment. In fact, both were too small and too short term to do anything useful.

Pragmatus said...

Jen…

Please make sure that if there are media there, they cover your story. Please also say that you are fearful of the teabaggers hijacking the debate, which they are, because there is no one on the side of sanity that can outshout them. You are living proof that the system is a cruel monstrosity, and that it needs to fixed. Not patched, but fixed.

Good luck to you, if I haven’t missed you going out the door. Even if I have.

markymark said...

jen, good luck with your treatment, and facing the baying hordes as well!

BDP, Just a word on why Congress felt that small, regular payments would be more stimulative. Most people, given a somewhat substantial amount of money tend to either save it or pay off debts. A few might buy a luxury, but this is a small few, espeically in economic hard times. Now a small increase in your regular income is more likely to be spent. (and remember the stimulative effect comes from buying a manufactured product.) Given an extra, say, 20 bucks a month, most people are more likely to buy a few coffees a month or a few extra beers or an extra meal out, or some other small luxury. Given millions of people spending 20 bucks a month, that does have a cummulative stimulative effect. Or at least that is the theory. But it seems a theory worth trying.

And to be sure that when/if Obama lets the Bush Tax cut expire, you will be on here right away calling that a tax rise.

Saint Dude said...

The only way to make the tax cuts bigger without breaking the bank is to pass them out to fewer people.

That is after all the "beauty" of republican tax cuts. A few individuals in society get multi-million dollar tax cuts (subsidies), while the rest get nothing.

Talk about choosing winners and losers.

Of course, according to your delusional mind, tax cuts to the wealthy pay for themselves, while tax cuts for the rest of us are the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility.

Bradford said...

God luck Jen!!!!!

Adam said...

Obama Has Cut Taxes for 98.6 Percent of Working* Households**

Obama might be able to make this case effectively - except for the fact that he is on a liberal crusade to save the planet.

Don't you think the "I cut taxes for 98.6 %" would have just a little bit more resonance if Obama and the blue team simply dropped this inane Cap'N'Trade Carbon Tax?

It's really easy for the Republicans to bash the Democrats on taxes when the party in power seeks to enact legislation that will inarguably lead to higher energy costs. Regardless of whether or not you believe this climate change bill is going to make a nickel's worth of difference in curbing greenhouse gas emissions - or if such a policy is even worth it - political the Democrats are just shooting themselves in the foot.

You can't run as the "I cut taxes" party when you are trying to save the planet in the middle of a recession and 9.4 percent unemployment. It's not going to fly - and that's why a) the bill barely passed and b) vulnerable Democrats in districts that vote GOP for president have run for the hills.

If instead of governing from the hard left, Obama simply took a centrist tack - say maybe waiting until the recession is over to push this climate bill - he might not be so easily caricatured as the liberal that he is.

GROG said...

Good luck Jen.

markymark said...

Adam said
'You can't run as the "I cut taxes" party when you are trying to save the planet in the middle of a recession and 9.4 percent unemployment.'
------------------------------

Odd thing is that I can't think of a better time to begin to save the planet. If you accept, as I do, that modern industrial procedures have a lot to do with the global instability of the climate, then it seems like a perfect time to encourage industry to change, when things are at a low ebb. They can then build and develop more ecologically sound techniques and develop a new greener industrial revolution.

Adam said...

markymark,

Fair point, but it's *global* climate change.

India and China aren't interested in our green do-good feel-good mentality.

And politically, as I said, it's just tough to claim that you are a tax cutter when there is a very vivid, concrete and easily sold and explained storyline that you want the American people to pay more for fuel for some "greater good".

markymark said...

Adam, its fascinating to me that in areas of, say depriving the world of despotic leaders, America sees that it has to play a leading role, but in areas of saving the world's environment it has to follow others.

And as I understand it, Cap and Trade is not necesarily a tax increase, if you adapt your fuel usage. Indeed as I understand it, it can become a tax credit.

I am not necesarily a fan of Cap and Trade in that I don't think it really hits at the problem, an over reliance on fossil fuels. I think it would be better perhaps to offer further enducements for the major fuel companies to diversify into renewables. (For instance, rather than drilling off shore, why not build off shore wind farms?) But Cap and Trade is a first step, it is a small step in the right general direction, and as long as it is seen as such, then it can be a useful beginning. But it is another policy that needs selling better.

I am still worried that Obama is heeding Mario Cuomo's old line about campaigning in poetry and governing in prose a little too much. I think the poetry part of governing is important as well.

Adam said...

Off-topic - but kind of a big deal.

CQ POLITICS RACE RATING CHANGE:

VIRGINIA TIPS TO McDONNELL.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003189414

Norman Kittrell said...

I would guess the white house isn't using the taxes as a talking point for two reasons.
-Tax breaks were largely added to the stimulus to garner republican support. While not a single republican voted for the stimulus, that wouldn't stop them from atleast partially claiming it as their part in the bill.
-The white house seems to be adjusting itself for a limited number of tax increase probably after the 2010 election cycle. If this is true it would be bad to talk up the economic need for reduced taxes only a number of months before you request higher ones.

Adam said...

markymark,

I think it would be better for the government to offer some sort of reward for American ingenuity.

I graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Meteorology. From what I learned in school (Go PSU!) it's pretty clear to me that if we keep putting CO2 in the atmosphere, eventually the temperature is going to rise. More CO2 = less longwave radiation emitted back into space. So I disagree with those on the right that say it's a hoax. It's not a hoax (On the flip side, a global warming of 2 or 3 degrees C might do more good than harm, but more than that means trouble).

Anyway, my take is this.

What if the government got together with some educated farmers and scientists and genetically engineered a plant that could somehow speed up the photosynthetic processes? Make it an incentive. Offer a reward. Don't punish American businesses, especially in a recession.

I didn't mean to threadjack about global warming on this thread, but it's tough to have a discussion about Obama cutting taxes with zero mention of the recent legislation that passed the House.

shiloh said...

Adam said...

Off-topic - but kind of a big deal.

CQ POLITICS RACE RATING CHANGE:

VIRGINIA TIPS TO McDONNELL.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003189414
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Virginia has (2) very popular Democratic senators, Webb and Warner, which politically, is more of a big deal!

Also off/topic ...

take care, blessings

p.s. if and when a Gov is elected in VA, that would be big/small deal or insignificant depending on how one wanted to spin it.

But the fact one person or party continually posts off/topic polls re: future elections means he or they are totally obsessed w/being in the permanent Rep minority!

ciao

markymark said...

Adam, its nice to hear a conservative talk sense on climate change! And I don't disagree with that as an approach to helping solve the problem. I think there does though have to be a carrot and stick approach to the whole thing, in my view. The Auto industry is an example of an industry unwilling to change its practices without being dragged kicking and screaming, and then suffering the consequences.

What most irritates me about the naysayers on the right when it comes to climate change, is that it stops the debate stone dead. I think its one of those issues where we need as many solutions as possible, and without the right coming up with ideas, you are left with a very one sided conversation, which is how come nearly baked ideas like cap and trade become the done thing. Political debate is important in coming up with reasoned policy.

Saint Dude said...

@Adam,

You have the right attitude about developing new carbon capture technologies.

Getting back to long term growth is not going to be possible by simply replicating the things that we have already done. It is going to take the development of new technologies / industries that can both solve future problems and improve the efficiency of production.

The right may carp that China is on pace to be the number 1 CO2 polluter in the near future. But they make no mention of the fact that the Chinese are far and away ahead of us in making investments into efficient (high speed rail) and green (wind and solar) infrastructure. They are preparing themselves quite nicely for a future that will be constrained by scarce and expensive fossil fuels.

If we do not significantly improve the efficiency with which we utilize fossil fuels we will be non-competitive.

newyorker2874999 said...

Mikeybackwards: I don't know if you live near NYC, but if you do, there is an agency of the MTA that is currently staffing up with people in your field of expertise.

It's called MTA BSC (Business Services Center) and represents an attempt to consolidate the back office functions of a half a dozen separate MTA agencies. Good luck to you.

Saint Dude said...

"Political debate is important in coming up with reasoned policy."

As long as such "debate" doesn't simply constitute screaming NO, making false and nonsensical accusations, referring to the opposition as the anti-christ or a fascist, or throwing around threats of violence.

But yes, I would definitely agree. Many opinions and ideas have to be heard in order to come up with effective policy.

Rudy said...

Pragmatus: excuse my vocabulary lapse. Not quite sure how I screwed that up so badly. Even so, I think you fail to understand the math. Had someone invested properly (i.e., not whole hog in equities, but in a balanced mix of uncorrelated investments), their account would already be back to within roughly 20% of its high.

Juris, you have not been contributing to a 401-k for 34 years. They have only been around for 28 years. Regardless, your math fits the scenario I presented. Had you been able to put all the money deducted as SS taxes into your 401-k, you would be able to retire with far more income than the combination of SS and 401-k.

All people would easily be able to retire more comfortably if they were allowed to put away 15% of their salaries in just a savings account, rather than had it over to the feds. Big time.

Let's say Juris had his 34 yeas of retirement savings in his 401-k rather than into SS. Let's say he started out of college at $20K per year and has been able to increase his salary at 6% annually (to a little over $100K presently) and invested the 401-k at only 5% annually, taking no risk. Right now his 401-k balance would be close to $500K, yielding $25K per year without ever touching the balance. If he works another 10 years as would be the norm, his 401-k balance would be about $1,000,000 at retirement under the same conditions. I'm sure his 401-k has done far better than that without taing any undue risk.

And as for St. Dude's point that SS is also an insurance policy, which was the original contemplation of the legislation, not to be a substitute for retirement savings, one could buy similar protection privately for only a few hundred dollars per year -- a drop in the bucket compared to the huge tax burden.

That is why SS is a poor investment for young workers. Ponzi scheme, indeed.

Rudy said...

Sorry, in the math I downgraded Juris to $15K starting salary in stead of $20K. But if it were $20K, the retirement account numbers would be about 30% higher.

Saint Dude said...

Interesting article in the new york times titled, "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=1&hp

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine and the former head of the Central Command, wrote recently in a report he prepared as a member of a military advisory board on energy and climate at CNA, a private group that does research for the Navy. “We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind.

“Or we will pay the price later in military terms,” he warned. “And that will involve human lives.”

Bart DePalma said...

Adam said...

I graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in Meteorology. From what I learned in school (Go PSU!) it's pretty clear to me that if we keep putting CO2 in the atmosphere, eventually the temperature is going to rise. More CO2 = less longwave radiation emitted back into space. So I disagree with those on the right that say it's a hoax. It's not a hoax.

I would be fascinated to hear what you were taught in your meteorology classes concerning scientific proof and climate computer models.

Were you taught that climate computer models need to be verified against the actual weather to be considered proven?

Or were you taught that computer models are themselves proof?

Under the scientific method, a scientist tests his or her hypotheses against reality to determine in order to prove them. Computer models are hypotheses and not proof. To be proven, computer model hypotheses must first be able to predict future weather or explain past weather.

The major evidentiary problem with the theory that human CO2 emissions cause an increase in atmospheric temperature is that the alleged evidence consists solely of computer models that have universally failed to either predict future weather or explain past weather. (We will leave aside for the moment the problems with proving causation when we have had two substantial cooling periods over the past century while human CO2 emissions increased exponentially).

Thus, I am curious whether climatology bothers to apply the scientific method.

shiloh said...

Saint Dude said...

“We will pay for this one way or another,” Gen. Anthony C. Zinni,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Zinni was my choice for Obama v-p, but military folk are wild cards when it comes to politics and are usually too independent to stay on message, which ironically was Biden's problem, staying on message and continually putting his foot in his mouth.

Zinni's background/career is very impressive! and he has no problem expressing himself.

carry on

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

The simple point is this—if people were allowed to “invest” the money that instead goes to the Treasury to pay Social Security taxes, half of them would lose everything they had within weeks. You can find statistics anywhere—most of the people who “dabble” in the market don’t make anything, in fact 9 times out of 10 they lose their shirts.

Also, you’d need to rebuild the entire retirement structure, because people currently paying SS taxes now fund the benefits of those who are already retired. The government doesn’t set aside a little ceramic piggy bank for each taxpayer, and put his contribution in every month, to be broken open upon retirement—your FICA goes into the general fund and benefits come out of the general fund.

So if nobody is paying into SS, but instead taking their monthly contribution and buying stocks or whatever, who’s going to pay for the retirees who are supported by the old system? Whether you realize it or not, your plan would need to come up with whopping subsidies, the granddaddy of all unfunded mandates, to pay for those folks who are living off their SS.

There is a reason SS doesn’t provide an astronomical return on investment. The yield on any investment is always directly proportional to the safety of it. That’s Stock Market 101.

In fact, if you do a little digging, you’ll see that Social Security was set up primarily to rescue those old folks who had lost their life savings in the stock market crash of 1929. The purpose was to provide a nest-egg that they couldn’t get their hands on the next time a too-good-to-be-true investment scheme came along.

As Bernard Baruch said, once the living memory of the last stock market panic dies away, everybody magically unlearns all the lessons it taught and starts the process all over again.

Michael said...

Rudy posted the following, and then proceeded to call it a "shell game":

So, by the same logic that extending the existing AMT tax benefit equals a tax cut, NOT extending the Bush tax cuts constitutes a tax increase.[...]

But that is PRECISELY the case! Isn't it obvious that if you have to be a certain amount in taxes and the next year, you have to pay more, your taxes have increased? Where's the "shell game"?

Saint Dude said...

@Rudy,

I think your math is a bit off, as well as some of your assumptions.

Starting with the math. If one starts out making 20K/year, and receives a 6% pay raise every year, they will indeed have an annual salary of $137,000 after 34 years (essentially what you said). However, if they only contribute 5% a year at an 8% return, they will only have saved 322K not the 650K you are suggesting.

However, I think your assumption of 6% annual wage growth is kind of silly, considering that wages have been fairly stagnant for the last couple of decades other than small window in the 90s. There is little reason that wages will grow at a pace exceeding inflation, so perhaps a 2-3% wage growth model would be more accurate.

Using 3% wage growth as our assumption, the same worker will be making 53K after 34 years, and will have saved 219K.

However, an 8% return is in no way guaranteed or "safe". If we were to assume a more conservative investment mix with a 6% return, this same worker would have saved 151K.

Meanwhile, the cost of living for said worker has more than doubled over these 34 years. So this worker has the equivalent of 75K in total retirement savings. That out to last him about 5 years, then he is screwed.

Moreover, your assertion that one can buy life insurance and disability insurance for a few hundred dollars a year is rather silly. Said worker could probably pick up said insurance for another 5-6% of his annual salary, providing he did not have any health "problems".

But the 15% number you use for federal withholding taxes includes not only social security but also medicare, and potentially medicaid.

Looks like a damn good bargain to me.

Adam said...

Were you taught that climate computer models need to be verified against the actual weather to be considered proven?

I'll start with the caveat that my primary focus is weather prediction, but I have taken classes in climatology and radiative transfer.

As to the question, unfortunately it can't work that way. 'Weather' or the day to day variations of atmospheric conditions is a totally different animal than climate. There are just too many variables that can't be measured.

Take water vapor, for example. As global temperatures increase, the amount of moisture will increase as well as more water gets evaporated. but where does the water go? It forms clouds. Depending upon the altitude of the clouds, the increased moisture could either exacerbate the warming or negate it. The models don't do a good job resolving the increased moisture so even though the underlying condition of increased CO2 WILL increase global temperatures in a vacuum, it's not always the case that temperature increases can be accurately modeled in practice.

There is also the problem of 'feedback'. Think of the polar ice caps. Some parts of the globe are so brutally cold that even with increased temperature leading to increased moisture, the atmosphere is still cold enough to allow that precipitation to fall to earth as snow. Then the snow accumulates and the high albedo of the surface allows solar radiation to get reflect back into space, offsetting the warming. Eventually, as the planet warms further, snow is harder and harder to sustain and there will be a spike in temperature.

These are just a couple examples. There are many more.

In my radiative transfer class it was shown pretty conclusively (through the scientific method using atmospheric chemistry) that increased CO2 WILL eventually lead to increased average global temperature. But the variables are so great that modelling how quickly and to what extent the warming takes place is a major challenge.

So in a nutshell, it's pretty messy :-)

Saint Dude said...

Wage increases are not uniform across all fields.

In certain areas, such as healthcare, wage growth has been explosive, possibly meeting or exceeding the 6% Rudy used. But in other areas, such as construction, wages have been stagnant for decades.

My own parents worked construction in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Wages spiked in the 70s, and then went down from there, thanks to the republicans pushing forward "right to work" legislation. Many workers near the bottom of the economic ladder see no pay raises at all, or if they do, their raises hardly keep up with the cost of living.

Pragmatus said...

Adam…

You may be astonished to discover that I am probably to the right of you on the topic of climate change.

Is global warming real? Yes.

Is man adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to drive global temperatures up? Yes.

Is global warming then a man-made phenomenon? Not entirely.

Glacier retreat has been taking place since the late 1700s, well documented in the Alps and elsewhere, long before man had any measurable effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since you are a meteorologist, surely you have studied Ice Ages to death, and know that the current mild climate we enjoy is not the norm, but one of the many flukes that occur, and last for ten to twelve thousand years, between every Ice Age. Ice Ages last a minimum of 100,000 years, and climate records, from ice cores, show that they come about very suddenly, in a matter of a decades. And those same ice cores show that the first sign of an approaching Ice Age is that temperatures warm considerably.

From my reading I gather that no one knows for sure what triggers the ice, but the leading candidate is that the Gulf Stream gyre shuts down. It is the Gulf Stream, bringing warm tropical waters up to Europe, that gives the continent it’s relatively mild climate. Without the Gulf Stream, Paris would be like Moscow. That is, until the glaciers return and obliterate it.

There is evidence to suggest that it is the balance of fresh vs. salt water in the North Atlantic that allows the Gulf Stream to circulate, and with copious amounts of fresh water pouring into the seas from Greenland and the Canadian Arctic, that delicate balance may be on the verge of a catastrophic upset.

All that said, it is still advisable to be able to control the amount of CO2 we are blasting into the atmosphere. There may come a time, in the not-too-distant future, when the advance of ice sheets across Europe causes us to want to enhance it.

Mike in Maryland said...

SarahLawrenceScott said...
I think taking credit for the AMT patch as a "tax cut" is a bit of a stretch. Congress always passes that patch; it would be perceived as a massive tax increase if they didn't do so.

One of the reasons the little shrub economic forecasts for the 'out years' of the budget forecasts were so rosy was because those 'out years' presumed that the AMT would NOT be patched, and thus more income would come rolling in. Every time an AMT patch was passed during the little shrub administration, you should notice it was for the immediate single upcoming tax filing, or maybe for two years occasionally. I think the Dems were gaming the system a bit, waiting for the GOOPers to be forced into introducing the bill to patch the AMT, hoping that it might not pass, then the outrage would have been on the little shrub administration.

What is needed is a permanent patch, one that takes into account rising wages. After all, the purpose of the AMT in the first place was to catch those in the upper income brackets who were not paying, or paying very little, taxes on their income. Remember, the AMT was originally passed in 1969, but didn't become effective until 1970, when wages and salaries were a fraction of what they are today.

According to this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36988-2004Mar6.html):

The Vietnam War was still boiling when an outraged Congress learned that 155 taxpayers with taxable incomes over $200,000 had paid no federal income tax in 1966. That led to the first "add-on" tax, a concept that would morph into the AMT.

Outraged lawmakers back then probably did not have in mind a reporter and his editor wife, but outrage leads to haste. When the AMT and its precursors were enacted, Congress neglected to allow its thresholds to rise with inflation, the way ordinary tax brackets do. So as incomes and costs of living rose, more and more taxpayers were ensnared.


I'm not sure what bracket a $200,000 income in 1966 would have been in, but I know it wasn't in the lower 80% of income brackets at that time.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Adam said...

From my reading I gather that no one knows for sure what triggers the ice, but the leading candidate is that the Gulf Stream gyre shuts down. It is the Gulf Stream, bringing warm tropical waters up to Europe, that gives the continent it’s relatively mild climate. Without the Gulf Stream, Paris would be like Moscow. That is, until the glaciers return and obliterate it.

Yes. Interesting stuff.

Another theory that we learned about was the Milankovitch cycles. Subtle changes in the axial tilt of the earth w/r/t the plane of orbit from 24.5 degrees back to 22 degrees are through to allow the ice caps to advance toward the equator - and the feedback of more ice and snow causes the temperature to plummet further.

If you're interested, the wikipedia article does a good job talking about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Rudy said...

Michael, you're exactly correct in you logic. The shell game is trying to say one is a tax cut and the other isn't a tax increase.

Pragmatus, it is not necessary for people to speculate with their retirement savings. Your lack of faith in the ability of people to make their own decisions competently reflects the overall nanny attitude of the left. Let the people choose for themselves. Your other points reflect my own points. Look up "Ponzi scheme" in the dictionary.

St. Dude, you're talking through your hat. My math was correct. you're using different numbers than I outlined. Try again, the math isn't difficult. My assumptions may be quibbled with, but they are in the right ballpark. you are correct that I included the Medicare premium in my calculation; without that the number would be 12.4%. Only if you make them unrealisticly pessamistic does SS begin to look even close in comparison. that would make about a 20% difference in my calculation, and the tradeoff would still be compelling. I didn't even consider his additional retirement savings he's been parking away, which I surmise is as big or bigger than the numbers we're talking if he's had anything resembling a normal career.

Disability insurance is dirt cheap for anyone in a normal occupation, less than 1% of earnings for similar coverage to that SS would provide. Think about the actuarials -- very few normal workers ever go out on long-term SSI disability. Those in higher-risk occupations are a different story and would need supplemental protection as they do now.

Juris said...

@Rudy: my case is real, not hypothetical. Your illustration is not accurate.

I started my current retirement fund contributions in 1975. The same fund family the whole time. It has been folded into a 403B (which is equivalent to a 401K but restricted to certain sectors of the economy).

How I wish I had started it when I was as young as your example says. But instead it started when I finished my advanced degree and I was making a the whopping salary of $15,500 per year. I was contributing 5% before taxes, my employer 10%. An excellent deal. It has done well, but went through several serious up and down cycles in late 80's, with dotcom bubble/9/11 crash, and now the great housing/financial recessionc rash of 2007-9.

Because of the severity of the latest downturn, my total accumulation is about where it was in 1999-2000. No net gain. Ten years lost. I'm typical in that respect.

If I were to retire and follow the recommended rule of thumb in the retirement fund management industry I would take no more than 4% of the total value per year in income from the fund. Of course that's taxable like regular income from wages.

At the current total value of the funds that would actually generate about 35% of my current wage income. Taking out more than 4% runs a higher risk that I will outlive my money. If I look at the the SS income for me and my wife, that would generate about 27% of my current income.

Thus, together my 403B and SS would provide about 62% of my current income. In my earlier post, I didn't directly calculate but was being a bit optimistic about how my investments might do between now and retirement. But that's the ballpark: 62 to 70% of my gross before-retirement income.

Yes, hypothetically, I could have invested my SS contributions over the years (my employer did not offer that option, however) instead of putting them in SS. But unlike my 403B, there wouldn't necessarily be an employer match. And so roughly speaking I would have only about 35% as much in my "social security investment fund" as I have in my current 403b. And my total income from the two sources would be about $20K per year lower than it's likely to be with the current system.

If the employer matched one-for-one, however, then conceivably I could have had 70% as much from my 'social security investment fund" as I have in my 403B. Together, then I might have come out even. But would the employer match or be require to do so?

Of course we're still in the trough of a badly depressed market. Things can improve. But things can also stay the same or go to hell. And I only have a couple of years before I retire.

I love the SS "backup" to my current 403B.

Saint Dude said...

Rudy, it is you who should go back and revisit the math. As you say, it is not that difficult.

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

Then just answer this one simple question…

If control over the money currently shunted to the government via FICA taxes were to revert instead to an account the individual taxpayer controlled, who is going to pay all those retirees whose livelihood depends on the checks funded by FICA taxes. You’re talking trillions in unfunded liabilities—perhaps you are so successful in the market you can pick up this tab personally.

If you’re going to talk in airy generalities about “people controlling their own money” then you have to expect to get slapped with a little reality in return. It’s not their money, it goes directly from their paycheck to pay those people who have already retired.

Social Security is a fixed system that was designed to keep people from meddling with their retirement funds to their detriment. There’s nothing on earth to prevent someone from making additional investments throughout his working life on his own, to profit or lose by depending on his skills. Instead, you apparently want the government to mandate some nebulous system to replace Social Security. What, exactly?

I do wish you’d make up your mind…

shiloh said...

PorridgeGun said...

But, to be honest, I can't figure out Obama and his advisers at all, particularly Axelrod, who I've never liked. I'm still waiting on those attacks ads going after McCain for not supporting Jim Webb's G.I. bill then taking credit for it weeks later.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As I wondered why McGovern in '72 didn't highlight his WWII war record, but it would have made no difference w/the Dems imploding, the Dems Vietnam war disaster which voters did not blame Nixon even though his secret plan to end the war remains a secret and an additional 20,000 soldiers and 300,000 Vietnamese died under his watch.

Re: McCain, a certified, genuine war hero not smart politically to concentrate on the small minutia ie his G.I. bill vote which had already been discussed by the media and would just highlight the fact Obama did not serve and McCain was a war hero. No votes would have changed re: this issue.

In presidential elections always concentrate on the big picture, the economy, the 100% Republican Iraq war, the cheney/bush banking crisis etc. and McCain made it easy for Obama by being an unstable ideologue by picking palin, suspending his campaign, lying to Letterman etc.

When the other candidate is imploding get out of the way and engage only on important issues. Much like Reagan, Obama only had to pass the C-in-C test as the opposing party was discombobulated and clueless!

ciao

Juris said...

@Rudy, note that in my real illustration, I counted my wife and my SS income together. If I followed your illustration, I would only count my own. That would be about 18% of my gross income. If we doubled it to include a hypothetical employer contribution, it would be 36% of my pre-retirement gross income.

So if you put together the two sources -- 403B + "SS investment income" -- under the more generous assumption about SS income, they would roughly equal one another. But if that assumption is incorrect, the two sources would be far from equal to one another. Under the alternative assumptions, I could end up with between 54 and 72 percent of my pre-retirement income (a range that's well more than a $20K difference in my case).

BTW/ the idea that you can save significant amounts of money on a middle-income salary -- beyond what's mandatory -- is something that is quite situational. It depends on number of children, whether the household has two incomes, good health, continuous employment, no "extra" dependents (elderly dependent parents), etc. We did save to subsidize college educations and we created artificial "forced" savings via deferred maintenance on the house (a cost that ultimately must be paid) and making our car replacement cycle 10 years instead of the usual 4 to 6.

Any estimate you make has to be done like a true economic or, for that matter, population forecast. Take a range of reasonable assumptions in order to bracket the most likely outcomes. This includes assumptions about income and employment as well as savings rates. Otherwise you risk picking a scenario that is extreme or outside the likely range.

From comparing my situation with that of my colleagues at work, I think my situation is fairly typical. But of course my personal example also included some assumptions that could affect its plausibility -- about how my 403B will do during the next couple of years (which largely depends on the stock and bond markets), what the annual contribution to the "social security investment plan" would have been, etc.

Mikeybackwards said...

First of all, Jen & newyorker2874999, thanks for the well wishes. I don't live in the New York area, but will see what I can find as I am willing to relocate if necessary.

Regarding the math provided with regards to possible return had FICA withholding been abolished and those funds available for private retirement investing:

Point 1) the figures used which were disputed (on rate final gross return) were I believe based on compounding interest/growth, versus simple interest/growth.

Point 2) such figures presuppose one having the ability and or discipline to maintain the investment protocol described.

Point 3) presupposes no reversals at/near the date of retirement where one would not have the opportunity to recoup losses thus negating any average rate of return models.

Point 4) does not take into account the employer FICA match.

dufffbeer41 said...

Good idea. I am unfortunately receiving unemployment benefits. I just wrote Obama a thank you note.

Rudy said...

Juris, of course you'd have to count the employer SS contribution, not just your own. It doesn't sound like you've done badly, and you certainly would have come out far ahead with all private investments instead of SS, too. I agree with you that it's a big bite out of anyone's paycheck, and SS was taking it from you day one, in addition to what you were able to squirrel away. When employers have to look at the total cost of employing someone, that's one of the big bites for them, too, and an inhibitor to job creation.

Pragmatus, of course current retirees are dependent on the benefits promised them by politicians having insufficient future income to pay those benefits. That is why SS is a Ponzi scheme. The numbers only get worse over time.

So, is the whole ecpnomy going to need to explode before there will be any reform of an unsustainable system that has gradually taken higher and higher proportions out of people's paychecks without solving the problem?

Hu Chi said...

I think it may be a mistake for Obama et al to start touting the benefits of their economic moves quite yet. A few more months of data might put them on a firmer footing, and the R's continual rantings don't seem to be yielding much fruit.

Call me another Obamaton, but during the long campaign Obama was frequently urged to get tough or more outspoken on one issue or another, but the results speak for themselves.

Sympathetic critics also do some of the heavy lifting themselves just by pointing out all the ways in which they think Obama could better make his case. Nate's articles aren't read in a vacuum. They help shape public discourse.

R's are so devoid of credibility with rational people that it's hard not to want to just keep giving them more rope. And offering tactical advice to Obama sometimes seems like carrying coals to Newcastle. So much for old saws...

BTW, I have multiple policy issues with Obama. My point is more to do with how he picks his battles.

ruthsea said...

Technically you are incorrect, there were no tax changes in the books, hence no cuts. What Obama did was cut the amount of witholding taken out temporarily - but it is still taxable income and unless someone addresses it, Americans will be paying it back come next April.

Most Americans will not even notice it because states had increased all sorts of taxes.

Before you get too excited about unemployment monies, because Congress opted not to read the bill, they missed a conflcit with food stamp rules. Some unemployed lost their foos stamps because Obama gave them an extra 15 bucks unemployment, doubt they think it was all that great of a deal.

Saint Dude said...

Rudy said, "When employers have to look at the total cost of employing someone, that's one of the big bites for them (matching FICA contribution), too, and an inhibitor to job creation."

Therein demonstrates yet another fundamental lie underlying your position.

You are assuming that there would be more jobs if employers did not have to pay their share of the FICA tax. I.E. the cost of labor would go down. What this demonstrates is that you understand that employers would not pass on potential tax savings to their employees in the form of higher wages. Thus, employees would receive a lower level of compensation if the FICA tax were somehow eliminated.

Good luck matching all the benefits provided by the FICA tax utilizing a 7.5% savings rate.

If you want to assume that companies would all be so magnanimous so as to pass on their share of the FICA tax to their employees in the form of higher wages, then there is no reason to believe that job creation would be enhanced.

Saint Dude said...

@ruthea

"What Obama did was cut the amount of witholding taken out temporarily - but it is still taxable income and unless someone addresses it, Americans will be paying it back come next April."

So in other words that portion of the stimulus bill costs nothing, and adds nothing to the deficit. Since after all, Obama isn't actually giving anyone anything.

No wonder the teabaggers are so concerned about mortgaging their grandchildren's futures. They must all be on food stamps.

Juris said...

@Rudy: the problem re social security can be resolved by taxing the rich the same % of their income as the less than rich are taxed now. Because of growing income inequality, an increasing proportion of the income of the rich is exempted from social security tax.

Yes, I have done OK on my retirement BUT it represents a special case.

(a) I make out OK only if you assume that market won't go to hell in the last couple of years I have before retirement (I'm just one year from retirement age, but have elected to defer retirement a couple more years in hopes of a market recovery), and that what I have accumulated by then won't go to hell after I retire (I know a couple of people who really got into a very bad situation because they retired in 2005-6 only to lose 40+% of their income between October 2007 and September 2008). Had I not had the option to do this (e.g., mandatory retirement, or ill-health), then I'd be in far worse shape financially; but working two more years also has a "cost" in terms of lost freedom and a more leisurely retirement, which I think I've earned after all these years.

At the same time, your original post on this assumed the market wouldn't crash in the years immediately surrounding retirement, so there'd be time to recover. That's an assumption that isn't always valid. And so you have to introduce some alternative scenarios, not just one that has a too-rosy assumption.

(b) The "industry standard" recommendation is that people seek to attain 80 to 85% of their pre-retirement income during retirement. Under any likely scenario, I will fall short of that, and possibly considerably short of that. My "best" assumption, which assumes an employer match to my contribution to my "SS investment fund" only ends up that fund equalling my 403B accumulation -- and leaves me at 72% of pre-retirement income.

But this best assumption also assumes the market stays flat or improves slightly over the next two years. I could end up in better shape; or in worse shape than that.

(c) Not everybody has an employer that is as generous as mine was with a 2-1 match of 5% of my gross wage. Nor does everyone benefit from continuous employment, or even from employers who contribute to retirement (whether social security or other plans).

I have a brother who spent his entire life making a good wage and has a decent defined-benefit retirement plan, but his employer did not participate in social security at all. Yes, he could have contributed on his own, but no employer match. If my employer were more typical even in the 403B world, I'd have a lot less accumulated than I do. Again, your model should reflect these alternative scenarios, and not just one that favors your argument.

Saint Dude said...

Or at least use realistic numbers. Really, who gets 6% annual raises, 8% "safe" investments, and life, disability and health insurance policies for $1-2 hundred per year?

Besides that, learn how to calculate compound interest. Even with your silly assumptions, your math is just wrong.

bradams said...

Maybe it hasn't permeated up to casual viewers yet but President Obama has indeed been highlighting the non-infrastructure elements of the recovery package. He usually says something along the lines of "let's talk about what was in the recovery package" and then goes on to point out that 1/3 of the recovery money went to tax cuts, 1/3 went to extend unemployment and state assistance, and the remaining 1/3 is for infrasture investment, etc. In fact, at his town hall event in Elkhart, he made these points in his prepared remarks and then repeated them in his one-on-one interview with Chuck Todd.

Mike in Maryland said...

markymark said...
I am not necesarily a fan of Cap and Trade in that I don't think it really hits at the problem,

I'm also not particularly a fan of Cap and Trade as it doesn't go far enough quick enough.

It does contain provisions to gradually drop the 'cap' limits on greenhouse emissions, but in my view, not nearly fast enough.

All in all though, I'd rather have Cap and Trade in place than the Party of No's answer - "Let private industry continue to pollute as much as it wants!".

When the first environmental laws were passed, one paint company had a testing lab next to a very polluted river. They 'tested' paint samples by dropping panels of the paint to be tested into the polluted river, analyzed the effects, and that was their test. After environmental laws were passed, and the river started to get cleaner, the company found that they had to come up with new methods to test the paints. In the process, they found that the newer tests were:

1. Quicker, so they could make needed changes to the product quicker, and get it on the market quicker, thus start making a profit quicker; and

2. More effective, as they could determine what aspects of the paint they wanted to test (chemicals, acid rain, fading because of sunlight, durability from rain, etc.), thus able to test for those aspects of the paint that dropping into the river didn't test.

All in all, the environmental laws that started to clean up the river actually helped the company reduce expenses and/or make profits sooner, even though the company fought the environmental laws tooth and nail because those laws forced the company to change decades-old testing patterns.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

You got the talking points down fine. You get an A+ for regurgitating them, but for them to have any more impact than a puff of air you need to wander from them long enough to examine what you are saying.

Social Security would be solvent tomorrow, forever, if the rich were forced to pay the same percentage as low- and middle-income earners do. I’ll bet my grandmother’s teeth that you don’t make $100,000 a year, and so you are one of the very people the rich are screwing by the system the way it is. You’re not getting screwed by Social Security, you’re getting screwed by the jerks who are whispering GOP talking points in your ear. Don't you know that they laugh at yokes like you behind your back?

Wake up, man.

NJ_Moderate said...

Well, the 95% number is quite misleading especially given the pain that is coming down the road. For example, the increased deficit has caused (partially) the 10-year rate to spike over 1% since his inauguration. For anyone who has a credit card balance or an AMT, this increase would be far more than the $400 or $800 obtained from the tax cut. Likewise, businesses are a little more reluctant to hire based upon the Chrysler and GM fiasco. Although the changes made will probably be beneficial to the companies, the stiffing of the secure bondholders will probably reduce the expected business investment so unemployment will probably be 1-1.5% higher than it would have been otherwise. I am sure the Democrats will overreach and overreach badly in the upcoming months. All political parties do when they control both houses and Congress and the Presidency. 2010 and 2012, especially, will be the mirror images of 2006 and 2008.

Pragmatus said...

Gee, another "moderate" predicting doom and gloom for the Democrats. How refreshing...........

flearth: Planet of the Fleas...

Juris said...

Ahh those poor stifled bondholders! They loaned money to GM and Chrysler -- two companies with bankrupt business models and that are surviving only because the government stepped in to help.

The bondholders either knew or should have known that they were taking a high risk. And they lost. That's capitalism. It can't be heads I win, tails you lose.

Saint Dude said...

@Pragmatus

My sentiments exactly.

Lets see:

1) It is true that 10 year U.S. Treasury Yields have risen from their historically low levels. Of course this has more to do with the fact that people are no longer cowering in fear, and have taken their money out of safe treasuries and have begun to put it to work in more risky higher yielding investments. It was a panicked flight to quality that caused treasury yields to go so low in the first place. With a new found confidence, yields are gradually returning to historical norms.

2) It is pure supposition (ridiculous supposition at that) that businesses are not hiring because GM and Chrysler were forced to restructure their failing business models.

3) I would be curious to see ANY evidence that investors are no longer investing in private companies because of the aforementioned restructuring / bailouts.

4) Wow, this prognosticator thinks those plans are going to contribute 1-1.5% to unemployment. Now i am really scared. Too bad there is no evidence, or reasoning to back this claim up.

5) This moderate is forecasting total republican control in 3 years, as if that is a good thing considering, "All political parties do [overreach] when they control both houses and Congress and the Presidency."

Sure sounds like a "moderate" to me.

Juris said...

BTW/ Rudy. My last comment on the retirement issue. In case I haven't made it clear, my employer for the last 34 years has in effect contributed about 16% of my pay to my retirement (10% to 403B plus ca. 6% SS), while I have contributed 11% (5% to 403B plus 6% SS). Despite this, under any way you reckon the social security part (turn it into an investment or keep it as a so-called trust fund) I come up short. Not desperately short, but definitely short -- under a very generous employer contribution plan.

Which plan to turn SS into an investment fund would require employers to supply 16%? None. Had I been under an alternative, more likely regime, I'd be much farther away from my target now than I actually am.

And where I am now is hoping the market revives while I lose 2 (hopefully) healthy years of retirement and work to age 68 -- while still falling short of the optimal income target. (Yet knowing that I can at least count on the SS fixed amount with a COLA is extremely important to my sense of security.)

In short, as others have pointed out, your numbers and projections are unrealistic.

Mike in Maryland said...

NJ_Moderate said...
For anyone who has a credit card balance or an AMT, this increase would be far more than the $400 or $800 obtained from the tax cut.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the increase in credit card rates is due to the GREED of the banks to beat the regulations that will go into effect early next year.

As to the "increase would be far more than the $400 or $800 obtained from the tax cut" shrill screed, if you don't carry a credit card balance, you won't be paying that interest with most cards.

As to the shrill screed about AMT, are you discussing the Alternative Minimum Tax? If so, then Nate provided information that you are not doing too bad:

"Most people who would be hit by the AMT are doing pretty well. The median income among people who would be subject to the AMT is about $130,000, and the average is about $165,000."

Considering that the median annual household income in New Jersey is somewhere around $65,000, if you are facing the AMT, it looks like you are well above that median annual household income. And if you are faced with an Alternative Minimum Tax next year, that means you have a job that pays VERY well, unlike millions who are now without a job because of the little shrub recession.

NJ_Moderate said...
Likewise, businesses are a little more reluctant to hire based upon the Chrysler and GM fiasco.

Got any citations from legitimate sites to back up that shrill screech-monkey comment? Cato, Faux News, Lush, Manthrax, O'LIElly, Malkin and their ilk don't count.

NJ_Moderate said...
Although the changes made will probably be beneficial to the companies, the stiffing of the secure bondholders will probably reduce the expected business investment so unemployment will probably be 1-1.5% higher than it would have been otherwise.

Again, got any citations from legitimate sites to back up that shrill screech-monkey comment? Cato, Hoover Institute, Faux News, Lush, Manthrax, O'LIElly, Malkin and their ilk don't count.

NJ_Moderate said...
I am sure the Democrats will overreach and overreach badly in the upcoming months. All political parties do when they control both houses and Congress and the Presidency. 2010 and 2012, especially, will be the mirror images of 2006 and 2008.

And what were you doing when little shrub and the GOOPers were overreaching during their control of government? Sitting back and counting your millions? I really doubt that you were out protesting the shredding of the Constitution, among all the other atrocities committed by the little shrub administration with help from their GOOPer cronies in Congress.

Your screen name does not indicate your political philosophy. You are a shrill shriek-monkey for the wingnut wing of the wingnut GOOPer party.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Mike in Maryland said...

Very interesting article at MSNBC:
‘Cash for clunkers’ a real slam dunk
Success of program has nation’s car dealers fearing empty lots


Just a few of the benefits I see (beyond the benefits to the ecology):

- Since dealers pay interest when the cars sit on the lot, that means they won't be paying as much in interest, thus helping with the bottom line at year end. Since interest payments are a deductible business expense, that means more possibility of profit, thus increased business tax income for the government.

- The sales people are working more hours, meaning they have more take-home pay.

- With increased demand to refill the lots, auto makers are calling back workers, and extending hours of the workers on the assembly line, meaning they have more take-home pay.

- When the assembly lines have workers working longer hours, the surrounding businesses (such as diners and other eateries) have more customers, thus the cooks, waiters, cashiers, dishwashers, etc. work more hours, meaning they have more take-home pay.

I'm sure others can come up with other benefits of the emptying new car lots, but I'll stop here.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

newyorker2874999 said...

Social Security is like any other machine, needing periodic maintenance to remain in a state of good repair.

Any alleged SS insovency would be due primarily to the GOP's longstanding tendancy to obstruct essential maintenance, i.e. occasional and relatively miniscule tweaking of this great engine of national stability.

The tweaking wouldn't have to project SS out a million years to be successful. Just a few decades until the boomers have passed on and / or some next big population spike has entered the FICA-paying work force.

Saint Dude said...

@Mike

How about increased sales tax revenues? For every $1 billion the government puts into the CFC program, there are roughly $6.5 billion in new sales. At an average of 5% sales tax, that represents around $325 million in additional revenue for cash strapped municipalities.

And if one considers that the CFC program has increased foot traffic at dealerships above and beyond just the individuals trading in their clunkers, the actual revenues are undoubtedly greater.

If one considers that there is likely somewhere on the order of an additional $10 billion in economic activity for every $1 billion put in by the government, there is a fair likelihood that the tax revenues resulting from the program will represent a net gain, or at least be deficit neutral.

Add in the decreased unemployment obligations that result from all this activity, and it is a HUGE economic winner.

They should keep it running until such time that the economic recovery takes hold and employment starts to improve.

Saint Dude said...

Oh, and for those that would argue that these sales would have occurred anyway, just at a later date:

Which do you think has more impact, economic activity in the midst of the grandaddy of all recessions, or the same activity when the economy is running smoothly?

If you want to argue that the economy should just be allowed to go as low as it can go, according to "market forces", you are basically saying that every last bit of economic activity for the last 10 years amounted to absolutely nothing. All the gains from those "tax cuts for the rich" produced what exactly?

Matt said...

@Bart dePalma:
During his campaign, Obama promised a real tax cut permanently reducing tax rates:

"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s."


I guess there's something seriously wrong in my reading comprehension. I don't see the word, "permanently," in the sentence that you quote. Nor do I see a promise to reduce taxes or tax rates. To me, "the same or lower" means "the same or lower." To me, it doesn't mean "reduced."
I thought words meant what they meant. Silly me.

markymark said...

BDP kind of proved my point about right wing Climate Change skeptics. Rather than accepting that there is a problem, and the scientific community is pretty much in a total consensus about that. First off scientists very very rarely ever PROVE a hypothesis. Scientific proof tends to be more current scientific understanding. (Think of how the work of Einstein say disproved Newton's work, though building on his ideas).

But the other point in Climate Change is simply the volume of albeit circumstantial evidence that the global climate is doing some strange things. Now it may be coincidence that this is all happening at the same time as the human population of the globe is adding hugely to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But that seems a very very unlikely scenario to me.

Bottom line, in the technical meaning of the sense of the word, human causes of Global Climate Change may not have been proved, but the balance of evidence all seems to be pointing one way. The right are doing a diservice to future generations by ignoring that.

NJ_Moderate said...

Mike in Maryland is the perfect example why our parties control of power will slip in 2010 and fall in 2012. It is the arrogance, name-calling and lack of facts that will doom our party with the flyover country. Obama had two choices: he could have governed more pragmatically and been a great president or he could fall in line with Pelosi and Reid and be a symbol of mediocrity. Obviously, he has chosen the latter.

Going by facts .. the stimulus bill can be rightly described as an outright failure even from Obama's own arguments. In fact, in a perverse way, the bigger the failure Obama's proposals are, the better the economy will be. The 'cap and trade' proposal (if you bothered to read than monstrosity) would be a functional massive tax increase on American families. The health care plan would be a disaster as well. It is not a coincidence that the stock market is rising after these two proposals look to be foundering.

A pragmatist would take the best plan put forth my the McCain campaign (removing the tax exemption for health-care benefits) and adding the proposed 5.4% millionaires surtax. With the money raised from these two proposals, all 15, 30 or 47 million people could be given catastrophic health insurance.

I am sure there are those who live in Republican governor and legislature-controlled states who are suffering from their abuse of power. Certainly, New Jersey is a PRIME example of Democratic overreach, so much so that Corzine is probably a goner come fall (not that it wouldn't be deserved .. he has been particularly bad even by NJ standards). The same overreaching that was done in my state is being done by Pelosi, Reid and Obama now (and was done by our party in 1993-1994). As the proverb goes .. those that do not understand the lessons of history are doomed forever to repeat them.

Rudy said...

Juris, I have postulated in my calculations that all money invested would be in low-risk vehicles, so the market meltdown scenario isn't appropos. It is extremely important to treat retirement funds as low-risk once someone is within spititng distance of retirement age.

You make a good point about the tradeoff between working longer versus retiring with less money. That's a tradeoff everyone is forced to make. It's much like why higher income tax rates also force people to be indentured to government longer than they'd like to be.

Again, I'm trying to stay with apples/apples comparisons by substituting private investment for SS taxes, so while you had an excellent retirement savings plan wih your employer, it is aside from this comparison, except to your point about post-retirement quality of life being better the more you are able to save. Unfortunately that point is lost on many people who think high SS taxes are their only protection from themselves blowing the retirement money plan. So, the alternative scenarios you present don't apply if we're only considering SS taxes and the results of investing it individually in an ultra-conservative manner.

I think your estimate of needing 80-85% of pre-retirement income in retirement is far too high, especially if you own your home. There are a lot of costs that go away or way down upon retirement, and housing costs go down immensely once the mortagage is paid off. Tax rates drop precipitously once income is no longer so high. 50% is probably closer to the necessary mark for most middle-class people if they tighten down on optional expenses without undue effort. I saw my parents live quite handily in retirement on about $20K per year before vacation expenses and other non-mandatory costs.

You have a good grasp on the personal economics and have clearly spent a lot of time on your retirement plan, for which you should be applauded. I would encourage you to do the analysis isolating the SS component alone so it's easier to understand the math comparison between SS and private investment of the same dollars. Certainly, the government could continue to mandate the same employer contribution as is the case in SS, so to suggest the incoming dollars would not be as high is only a disingenuous way to discredit the clearcut math. I didn't make any heroic assumptions in estimating 6% annual wage growth over a career and a 5% ROI.

St. Dude, the others understand my math, so it is you who is making a calculation error somewhere, not me. You haven't provided anything I can decipher to help you out. I have no idea where you got this 8% number you keep bringing up.

It is interesting that you would want to play the "lie" card. Is that all you got after we've all gone through the math? You put words in my mouth and then twist them to make your "lie." I was making two completely different points: one about substituting private retirement accounts for ss, and the other about the effect of raising taxes on employment. You seem to think that unless employers are forced by government to pay their people, they wouldn't pay them at all.

What planet are you living on to think that you think SS is anything but a financial disaster for anyone who is now on the paying end? This denial of fundamental economics is all too commonplace among the left, and is why the problem persists.

Pragmatus, it is none of your business how much I make, nor should it make any difference in my political philosophy. You seem to think everything would be magically OK by foisting a double-digit tax rate increase on higher income people. Not only is that math wrong, but it would be highly distressful to employment and the economy. Such bolshevik thinking is extremely dangerous and is at odds with any rational economic analysis. Ponzi scheme.

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

As long as you cackle the Republican line without bothering to examine what it is you are talking about, no one will take you seriously. As it is now, SS is subsidized by people making less than $100,000 a year. Those people who make more than $100,000 get a free ride. So to my suggestion that everybody pay the same rate, i.e. shoulder equally the burden that provides benefits for them all, you can only respond by crying bolshevism!

I guess that, to you, is “rational economic analysis”.

Go sit by the phone now, and wait for your millionaire friends to call and invite you for a round of golf today. Surely all your battling on their behalf has earned you a treasured place in theirs hearts, and entrée into their social stratum. Go. Sit. But I would advise taking a nice thick book with you, to read in the meantime. You may be waiting quite a while.

Matt said...

@Jen

So: how's it go at the town meeting?

wv: monstly: mostly monthly.

Rudy said...

Pragmatus, what you say is patently untrue. SS benefit calculations are tied to how much you've paid into the system. People at the high end pay far more into it than they'll ever get out, and vice versa for low income people. You seem to have a misconception that SS taxes sohuld be punitive for higher incomes like income taxes are. That has never been the objective of SS taxes -- they are alledgedly to fund your future benefits. But as you apparently understand but will not acknowledge, SS is a Ponzi scheme which will only hurt those who are at the end of the line.

Hope your lunch of porridge and moldy rye bread can help stimulates some more productive and accurate thoughts.

Pragmatus said...

NJ_“Moderate”…

You sure have me confused.

Which party is yours? First we have this comment from you—

          “Mike in Maryland is the perfect example why our parties [sic] control of power will slip in 2010 and fall in 2012.”

By “our” party you must mean the Democrats, since the GOP isn’t in power. And yet further on you say—

          “The same overreaching that was done in my state is being done by Pelosi, Reid and Obama now (and was done by our party in 1993-1994).”

Since 1993 and 1994 were the years of the Thousand Year Reich (oops, sorry, I mean the “Republican Revolution”) I am assuming “our” party in this context means the Republicans.

?????

I think the whole problem started when you decided that simple GOP blather wasn’t going to get you anywhere, so you decided to tart up your posts with a pretense of being a “moderate”. Lady MacBeth once observed—

         Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
         When first we practice to deceive.


Translation: If you’re going to lie, make sure you keep your stories straight. It’s one thing to be a person who believes in frivolous, laughable Republican ideas, quite another to believe such junk yet find it necessary to fib about it.

Rudy…

There’s just no reaching you with the truth. You are battened down with complete and foolproof security against any fact ever finding its way to your brain.

Wayward Son said...

"As it is now, SS is subsidized by people making less than $100,000 a year. Those people who make more than $100,000 get a free ride."

True in spirit, but not exactly.. people earning over $106.8K pay SS taxes on the portion under that limit. A miniscule amount percentagewise, if they happen to earn a few million.. but not a free ride.

Of course, if that person isn't earning income, and is instead relying of investments or capital gains.. then yes, total free ride.

Juris said...

@Rudy -- you wrote: "Juris, I have postulated in my calculations that all money invested would be in low-risk vehicles, so the market meltdown scenario isn't appropos."

Have you actually looked at what happened to "low risk" securities in the recent crash? If by that you mean money market funds, and you stick with those for entire life of the account, there is no way in hell you will get anywhere near the long term gains you propose.

Have you looked at trends in bond funds? Obviously not.

What have you actually looked at while "postulating" low risk?

Again, I have requested that you calculate your outcomes under multiple scenarios and assumptions -- that is industry standard. What standard are you using?

You appear to be making things up.

More generally, "low risk' means "low return." You're also promising to do way better than current social security payments. But you haven't shown that your system can survive successive big financial downturns. That's my main argument.

You want to minimize risk -- which also minimizes gain/growth over the long run. You haven't persuaded me or anyone else here that people's only source of "social security" wouldn't have been decimated.

No securities are immune to the kind of financial debacle we've had the last few years. And if someone is close to retirement like me, there is no recovery on the original schedule -- work longer and pray for a market recovery is nothing like the guaranty you were promising in your early posts.

On the issue of 80-85%, that's the industry standard. If you want to "guaranty" that people will live poorly, no thanks.

(And a small point: there was never a good calculus of the administrative costs of the Bush plan, and as we saw with Medicare Advantage, the Bush social security plan would doubtless have made many billionaires -- for bankers, money managers, private financial advisors, etc.)

Pragmatus said...

Wayward Son…

You are entirely correct. I can be as guilty of the “talking point” as the next person, but I like to think there is a little reasoning behind mine.

The problem with explaining the complexities of the actual situation is that everybody’s eyes glaze over at the first three-syllable word. The situation as it is exists is unfair to those who make less than $100,000, because they share a disproportionate burden of the program’s cost. Those above $100k do get a free ride, although only on that portion of their income that is above $100k.

It was more important to me to make the issue of the free ride, than to parse the actual ins and outs of it. I’ve seen many worthwhile Democratic plans and programs get lost simply because the explanations got too involved, and so were easily sunk by simple-phrase torpedoes from the other side, such as Sarah Palin’s referring yesterday to a “death panel” as being part of the Democratic plan to reform health care.

The dumb are not going to tolerate or even hear the arguments; “death panel” alone will stick in their heads.

Rudy said...

Juris, an example of a low-risk, good-yield security would be a GNMA bond fund. Acceptably-low capital volitility (about 10% max variance from high to low over 20 years), and current yields are about 4.6% even in an era of historically-low interest rates.

Undoubtedly, such a fund would have yielded well in excess of my 5% assumption over the 34-year time frame we've been discussing. During much of that time, GNMA yields were in the high single digits, and eyeballing it, I'd say the average current yield has been around 7% over the last 20 years, and a higher total yield. These are excellent retirement fund vehicles and would avoid all of the higher-volatility scenarios you needlessly present. I'm really surprised you're not aware. Sure, these bond funds go up and down inversely with interest rates during periods of movement, but low duration of the portfolios minimizes that impact.

Apology accepted.

loner said...

Pragmatus—

I see PorridgeGun beat me to it and linking isn't working for me.

NJ_Moderate is a concern troll who also plays analyst. He goes way, way back.

His election prediction can be found at: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/tallahassee-florida-moments-ago.html#comment-4209387937453348916.

Hey, NJ_Moderate!

Saint Dude said...

@Rudy,

"It is interesting that you would want to play the "lie" card. Is that all you got after we've all gone through the math? You put words in my mouth and then twist them to make your "lie." I was making two completely different points: one about substituting private retirement accounts for ss, and the other about the effect of raising taxes on employment. You seem to think that unless employers are forced by government to pay their people, they wouldn't pay them at all."

I wasn't really trying to call you a lier per say. I was just pointing out that your position is based false and contradictory assumptions.

As per my response:

"Rudy said, "When employers have to look at the total cost of employing someone, that's one of the big bites for them (matching FICA contribution), too, and an inhibitor to job creation."

Therein demonstrates yet another fundamental lie underlying your position.

You are assuming that there would be more jobs if employers did not have to pay their share of the FICA tax. I.E. the cost of labor would go down. What this demonstrates is that you understand that employers would not pass on potential tax savings to their employees in the form of higher wages. Thus, employees would receive a lower level of compensation if the FICA tax were somehow eliminated.

Good luck matching all the benefits provided by the FICA tax utilizing a 7.5% savings rate.

If you want to assume that companies would all be so magnanimous so as to pass on their share of the FICA tax to their employees in the form of higher wages, then there is no reason to believe that job creation would be enhanced."

In other words, either the cost of labor goes down, with possible job creation as the result, or employer's pass on the money to employees and the cost of labor does not go down. As usual you are fair and balanced enough to see it both ways.

As for your assumptions and math. Both are off base. Almost no one gets 6% annual raises, and no one I know can purchase life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, and potentially poverty insurance (medicaid), for a couple of hundred bucks a year.

Dave said...

Those here who claim that SS is somehow a "free ride" for those who make more than $102k fail to understand how the SS retirement benefit formula works.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html

(1) Those who have wage earnings over the cap ($102k today) will receive zero additional benefits for those dollars earned over the cap. This is why they pay zero additional dollars in SS FICA taxes. Otherwise, A-Rod and Bill Gates would receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in SS benefits each month when either of them hits the SS retirement age. See Step 1 of the retirement benefit part of the link.

(2) Similarly, the amount of non-wage income such as interest and capital gains is not used to determine one's SS retirement benefit. Therefore, if someone stops working at age 45 or 50 or 55, for example, those subsequent years of having zero wage income (and zero SS taxes paid) will still be counted as zeroes when SS calculates the AIME (Average Indexed Monthly Earnings) leading to the monthly retirement benefit for that person when he is old enough to receive such benefits. Once again, see Step 1 of the same part of the link. Also see Step 3.

If anything, SS subsidizes lower income retirees at the expense of higher income retirees because of the declining percentages of income replacement (90%, then 32%, then 15%) at each Bend Point. SS replaces a greater percentage of lower wage income workers than it does for higher wage income workers. See Step 5 from the same part of the link.

Once you see for yourself how the SS benefit formula works, you will see how raising the wage income cap without raising the benefit levels severs the link between FICA taxes paid in and SS retirement benefits received, turning SS into a welfare program.

Rudy said...

St. Dude, over the course of a career, raises are comprised of a combination of inflation-based increases, merit raises, promotions, and skill-based increases. I guessed about right that Juris started at $15,000 out of college 34 years ago (he said that it was $15,500), and with 6% annual increases, he'd be at around $100K today. I wouldn't expect him to disclose his current pay, but I think it is far more likely that I estimated too low than too high.

Again, you appear fixated on quibbling with minor details rather than on the undeniable truth of the big picture, and you refuse to stick to apples/apples comparisons.

Repeating yourself does not move the ball forward. It is absolutely true that increasing an employer's cost of carrying an employee would hurt employment prospects, which is what jacking up the SS limit would do. It woudl also be true that cutting SS taxs would stimulate employment, but that is extraneous to the present discussion.

I am absolutely correct that a normal occupation's disability insurance would cost less than 1% of salary for coverage similar to SSI disability coverage. You keep wanting to lard it up with extraneous stuff beyond the scope of SSI. Stick to the apples/apples comparisons, please.

Mike in Maryland said...

Pragmatus,

Isn't it interesting that those who advocate a 'flat tax' on income the most are almost always the same ones who cry bolshevism! whenever anyone broaches the subject of a 'flat tax' for FICA purposes?

I wonder why?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

@Dave: it was never intended to make SS payouts exactly proportional to contributions. There are many features of the current system that don't fit that notion.

For example, the way spousal benefits are calculated -- they are not linked simply to the wages earned or contributions made by each person but also depend on the spouse. e.g., a spouse can receive 50% of his wife's monthly payments even if he never contributed a dime to SS from his own earnings.

Nor does the overall pay per month necessarily reflect total lifetime contributions.

So there has always been something of a "safety net" aspect to SS. That is, many people are paying to provide that safety net for others.

The same logic could be true if the maximum wages that were subject to the SS withholding were raised. Yes, there could also be a raise in the base rates for those at the high end, but it wouldn't have to be proportional -- any more than it is now.

Saint Dude said...

@Dave,

There is no reason to assume that a change in the funding mechanism would require higher wage earners to get a 0% return on their investment as you suggest.

Why not just move the 15% return up the income ladder?

Rudy said...

Feeling frustrated, are we, Pragmatus? Indeed, you should. I think you're finally staring to realize what a mess this Ponzi scheme is. And your only defense is to dare realists to commit political suicide by opposing the program, which is why the dilemma will persist until it is blown to smithereens.

If congress had known what a mess this program looked like now and how high the tax rates already are, it would have never passed in the first place. Of course, we can't abolish it now. But we can start allowing people to self-protect a portion of their tax burden as savings rather than pissing it all down the bottomless hole.

Pragmatus said...

Dave…

No, you’re not understanding the purpose of Social Security, which was to provide a cushion of retirement income for those no longer able to work. There was never any intent to create an “investment vehicle” that might return, in your example, “hundreds of thousands of dollars to people like A-Rod…”

Whether you like it or not, or choose to characterize Social Security in such a way to make it fit into your definitions of fairness, it is a pay-in, pay-out system. The people working now pay into the system, payouts are made from that income to people who have retired.

The first person to receive a Social Security check was an old woman (in New Hampshire I think) immediately after SS was enacted into law She never paid a dime into the system, yet received benefits.

If earnings over $100,000 are taxed then I am perfectly willing to allow such wage earners, when they retire, to receive more in terms of benefits. But only slightly more. They don’t need the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” you propose. (Remember that SS’s purpose is to save retirees from abject poverty, not provide a “return on investment”. What kind of tangible, bottom line, dollars and cents “return on investment” do you get from the US Customs service? The Treasury Department? The Department of the Interior? Wall Street may operate that way, the government does not need to.)

If taxing earnings over $100,000 will make the system solvent for all time, it is time to do it. I think we can endure the howls of the rich who will complain that they are being bankrupted by being required to pay the same FICA rate the lowly janitor pays on his income.

Todd Dugdale said...

NJ_moderate wrote:
"A pragmatist would take the best plan put forth my the McCain campaign (removing the tax exemption for health-care benefits) and adding the proposed 5.4% millionaires surtax. With the money raised from these two proposals, all 15, 30 or 47 million people could be given catastrophic health insurance."

Wow. Just wow.
You just re-defined the word "pragmatic", didn't you? It means "of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations". So you now claim that the "practical" action would be to enact the proposals of the Party that lost the election and had less popular support.

And if the Administration were to do this, we would supposedly get "catastrophic health care coverage", presumably from the same private sector that has every incentive to use rescission and pre-existing conditions to weasel out of payment. Whoa! Big step forward, there! The "practical" thing to do, in the scenario you put forth, is to allow the uninsured's health to get to a critical state by scrimping on preventative care, then covering the costs of the treatment that leaves them debilitated.

It's like saying that the "practical" thing to do is to set aside all of that money you normally would spend on oil and oil changes for your car in a special account for a new engine.

As long as we're looking at practical reality here, let's not forget that the Right would fight such a plan, because that would mean a "victory" for Obama - and they can't have that. That "millionaire surtax" is "socialism", isn't it? What would Joe The Plumber say? Teabags would wave, and you would surely be here telling us, sagely, that Obama should have been bolder and gone farther with his proposals. It would also be fought by Obama's own Party, as it is not "reform" in any way.

You are little more than a "second guesser" with myopic hindsight.

Saint Dude said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rudy said...

I don't understand you, St. Dude. I've outlined my assumptions, backed them all up with solid logic (whether you want to accept it or not), and put out properly calculated numbers. All you do is try to obfuscate. Try bringing some numbers of your own with some substantive backing, if you're capable of that.

Saint Dude said...

Can't abolish SS. But you are saying you can divert funds away from the program.

Is that the same as partially abolishing SS?

Mike in Maryland said...

Rudy said...
Juris, an example of a low-risk, good-yield security would be a GNMA bond fund.

I suspect that Rudy doesn't know how GNMA makes money.

GNMA securities provide a connection between the capital markets and mortgage borrowers; investors purchase mortgage-backed securities (MBS also called RMBS), and borrowers gain access to investor funds.

Wasn't it 'mortgage-backed securities' that CIGNA was involved in, and wasn't it those same 'mortgage-backed securities' that caused the massive losses at CIGNA?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Dave said...

@Juris

I know the SS proportion of payouts is not the same as one's contributions. But each dollar paid in results in some dollar of payouts which is greater than zero, not zero itself. If someone is paying zero dollars of FICA dollars then they will receive zero dollars of benefits as part of the benefit calculation, as it should be. The benefit formula uses only the highest 35 years of indexed wages when determining retirement benefits. I don't necessarily oppose raising that to 37 or 40 years, for example.

@Saint Dude

I don't necessarily oppose your 15% bend point up. My beef is with those who want to raise the income cap while not raising the wage cap along with it. You never hear that, only the "raise the cap" claim.

@Pragmatus

I surely do understand the purpose of SS. I never claimed it was a purely investment vehicle. Instead, it (the retirement portion) is a wage replacement vehicle (for retirees), as the benefit formula uses capped wages to determine benefits. Please don't misstate my position. My "hundreds of thousands" when referring to A-Rod and Gates may be an exaggeration, as I am not privvy to their top 35 years of wage income which would figure into a monthly SS benefit if the wage/benefit cap were not in place. Raising the cap won't do anything to help lower wage-income retirees because their benefit level is already well below it and would not increase.

To you and the others, if you want to read some clean information about SS, check this out from the Concord Coalition:

http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/entitlements/social-security

Check out #9 in its series, the one about raising the cap. It doesn't fix the problem.

The lowly janitor will have a greater portion of his capped wage income replaced by SS than the rich guy, which was always the intent of SS - to keep people like the janitor out of poverty.

Pragmatus said...

Dave…

When both the CBO and he GAO have issued reports stating that Social Security would be made solvent by abolishing the wage cap, without any dire catastrophies befalling the rich, then I am going to believe them.

You are making the same back-door, obfuscating arguments the GOP has always used in its support of rich folks who are determined to contribute as little as possible to the public good.

It does not matter if it is entirely “fair” to the rich to seem to pay more into a system than they themselves get out of it.

Let’s look at some examples everybody can relate to.

Every time I fill up with gas I pay taxes whose purpose is to maintain roads and streets where I live. In the small community in which I reside, none of the streets I travel on have been repaved for years. By your logic, this represents an injustice being done to me. I am paying taxes year in and year out for which I derive no benefit. Same is true of sewer fees paid every month. The city has not moved so much as a teaspoonful of dirt to fix, renovate or rebuild the sewers where I live, yet they undertook a very massive project about a mile away several years ago. Sounds like you would say I got rooked. I got stuck paying for something that benefited some shlubs I don’t even know.

Similarly, if a guy making $200,000 a year pays into a retirement system at the same rate as everybody else, yet doesn’t realize the same rate of return as someone who struggled to make a living all his life, is that rich guy really getting robbed? Nobody with any social conscience would think so.

The bottom line is simply this—FICA taxes are the most regressive in the entire federal system. If you are really interested in fairness, as you profess to be, then lets make this a “flat tax”, so that everybody, regardless of income, pays the same rate.

What could be more libertarian, Ayn Randian or Steve Forbesian than that?

markymark said...

I don't especially want to keep jumping up and down on BDP on this but here he says
'You may want to consider a contrary view from Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a professor of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig, Germany.'
----------------------------

This is another classic right wing naysayer tactic. Pick the ONE outlying scientific opinion, and give it the same, if not more credence than the huge weight of scientific opinion that says something different. Of course Herr Gerlich's ideas shouldn't be totally dismissed, but I am always a bit suspicious of scientists who go so totally against the grain. I do wonder, given the nature of the funding of scientific research, and the value in being a 'known name' rather than being right. I am also suspicious of politicians and political commentators trawling around to use that research as evidence.

newyorker2874999 said...

Rudy said...
"Juris, an example of a low-risk, good-yield security would be a GNMA bond fund".

I'd imagine that, looking backward, hindsight could cherry-pick all manner of private investment vehicles that would have outperformed FICA's ROI over the past 35 years.

What idiots all those current SS beneficiaries must be. If only they had possessed the presence of mind to invest their FICA money in Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft for the last 35 years, what a prosperous retirement they could be enjoying right now. Who knew?

Consider this: Even as it stands now, SS will still be able to cover almost 80% of scheduled benefits at the absolute peak of the boomers retirement era. After that, the percentage will do nothing but rise, even if no tweaking is ever done to the system at all. Ponzi or not, SS still rocks.

bleepul said...

What a joke. Making work pay just gives money to people who don't pay much tax e.g. you owe $50 bucks in taxes and the gov gives you $1000 because it's refundable. Extension of AMT isn't a tax cut it's an extension ... and incentives are just that.

Amazing the justifications going on here. Truly depressing how you kid yourself into believing what isn't even close to being true.

Mike in Maryland said...

Dave said...
. . . the intent of SS - to keep people . . . out of poverty.

True.

When FDR proposed Social Security, the poverty rate for the elderly was well north of 50%. Because of Social Security and Medicare, that rate is now estimated at well below 10%.

And for those who will want to scream that "They are now RICH! RICH! RICH!", I challenge you to live for a year on an income of twice the current poverty threshold (or guideline for Alaska or Hawaii), and then tell us how it felt. Most recipients of Social Security get more than the poverty threshold, but less than twice that threshold. (The threshold is the same in, and applicable to, all states, including Alaska and Hawaii. The guidelines apply to Alaska and Hawaii.)

For those who don't keep up on this subject, the current poverty guidelines (for 2009) are:

For a single person:
48 Contiguous States and D.C. - $10,830
Alaska - $13,530
Hawaii - $12,460

For a family of four:
48 Contiguous States and D.C. - $22,050
Alaska - $27,570
Hawaii - $25,360

Remember, just a dollar more than the above figures means that you are not classified as in 'poverty'.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Juris said...

@Justin Patrick. If I had to guess, I'd say the the "mod" agrees with Saint Dude. And so does just about everyone else who had posted comments on this article.

markymark said...

*rollseyes at all the profanity and rudeness being shown in this thread*

Guys can we all please remember to play the ball and not the man, thanks.

Saint Dude said...

@markymark

You are most definitely correct.

When Rudy wrote, "I don't understand you, St. Dude. I've outlined my assumptions, backed them all up with solid logic (whether you want to accept it or not), and put out properly calculated numbers. All you do is try to obfuscate. Try bringing some numbers of your own with some substantive backing, if you're capable of that."

I should have responded, "I know you are, but what am I." Really I was just disgusted that he beat me to the punch. I was about to make the same exact point about him.

I will try to keep my insults limited to the third grade level from here on in.

Rudy is such a dweeb.

Saint Dude said...

bleepul said, "Making work pay just gives money to people who don't pay much tax e.g. you owe $50 bucks in taxes and the gov gives you $1000 because it's refundable. Extension of AMT isn't a tax cut it's an extension ... and incentives are just that."

1) the making work pay tax credit is nearly identical to the one passed by Saint Reagan.

2) I agree that the extension of the AMT is not exactly a tax cut (even though it was set to expire this year under Bush's budget). However, if it is not a cut, then it must be free, and should not be factored into the total cost of the stimulus. I'm fine with that.

3) "Incentives" as you call them are found all through the tax code. Most people would call them tax deductions.

Other than calling everyone a "joke", I am not at all clear what your point is.

Todd Dugdale said...

bleepul wrote:
"Truly depressing how you kid yourself into believing what isn't even close to being true."

It seems to work for Republicans, though: birthers, deathers, creationists, redemptionists, racists, tax deniers, etc.
And, as Adam implied, if something "works" then you shouldn't abandon it.

The fact is that MWP is a maximum of $400 for working individuals. If you think that the vast majority of wage-earners have less than $400 deducted from their paychecks for federal taxes each year, then you are the one who is "believing what isn't even close to being true". I have nearly that much deducted each month.

So, yeah, what a joke. Facts and stuff. People who believe in facts don't even believe that Orly Taits has Obama's Kenyan birth certificate, so that just proves the whole thing.

markymark said...

Just for fun, I went and read some of Bastiat's stuff. Absurdist rubbish mainly as far as I can tell.

If I were to give a more substantive criticims it would be along similar lines to my main criticisms of Marx's work in the modern world. Its just incredibly out of date. Mid 19th Century economics was based around a very different, much less interconnected world. Also both Marx and Bastiat seem to be taking a very intellectual approach to something that is actually very practical.

michael said...

Nice to see a (mainly) civilized discussion on here. Maybe the subject matter is not sexy enough for the pod people to post.

On social security, as others may have noted, Obama has kind of boxed himself in, just as in health care. To keep his pledge of not raising taxes on those making less than 250,000 he has to skip anyone making between about 105,000 and 249,999 in getting rid of the social security tax. That is about 14 million tax filers, a pretty hefty chunk to exempt, and it sure does seem patently unfair to make folks pay on their first 105,000, then not on their next 145,00 then start in again.

However, just as with health care, we seem to do an awful lot of things in very strange and convoluted ways - good 'ol American exceptionalism.

I do agree with Nate's main point that Obama should have been hitting the tax cut hard. I give this team a B plus for political instinct, but they do blow it sometimes, and this is one of those times. Maybe they are too busy constructing the Palin memorial death panel for liberals, which consists of being tied to a chair, having your eyelids pried open and being forced to watch Palin wink and say "you betcha" for eternity.

shiloh said...

Posted at a political forum at a reality tv site for a couple years before I knew there was a "report button." Started posting at said forum after lurking for a while and then discovering some of these peeps really, really didn't like each other.

hmm, said to myself, I should fit right in. ;)

At said forum when Dems were in the minority it was dominated by progressives and now that the Dems are in the majority it is still dominated by progressives. In fact, most of the conservatives stopped posting ie sour grapes, sore losers!

This is why it's so much fun being a liberal. We never go away and will argue/debate until the cows come home. And when the yahoo conservatives said in the late 60s/early 70s: America, love it or leave it! The liberals of course stayed because "we" obviously love America more than Reps. ;)

Yea, liberals never go away and this drives conservatives crazy!!! :)

carry on

p.s. at that political forum there is also a separate private conservative and liberal forum. After the election most of the Reps left and now only post in the conservative forum agreeing w/each other 24/7 and being disingenuously smug re: getting wiped out in the last (2) elections! How much fun is that! ;)

btw, 'Dateline' is showing a documentary on Woodstock. :)

Mike in Maryland said...

michael said...
. . . it sure does seem patently unfair to make folks pay on their first 105,000, then not on their next 145,00 then start in again.

Michael,

The GOOPers didn't have a problem with the exact same concept with the Medicare coverage they passed in 2003, so why should they oppose this one?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Justin Patrick said...

Mike in Maryland,

For your post at August 9, 2009 12:23 AM, I think Bastiat is a good read for you because you may have missed the opportunity costs that arise in cash for clunkers. Now, like Bastiat would also say, if the purpose is ecological, that is one thing. Just like with military spending, it might just be necessary for defense, because the country is or might come under attack. But once you start coming in with economic arguments, that is where you begin to run into problems. Arguments such as, It'll stimulate the economy, or, It'll create jobs, are fallacious, in my view, because the opportunity costs will always be more than the benefits derived.

Bastiat gave examples in his work, such as the one about maintaining a large, expensive military because it would "put people to work." He attacks that idea because it ignores the opportunity costs that arise, that of the lost labor and of the money lost by the taxpayer to pay for each soldier "to have a job." He also points out the uselessness of that soldier's job, because it is not necessary for defense--the national legislature only created it as a make-work program. So, instead of having the money stay in the taxpayer's pocket where it could be saved or invested and instead of having that soldier available to do productive labor, the taxpayer is forced to pay taxes to pay for the soldier to wear a uniform and do "right dress" "left dress."

That is the point of Bastiat's work.

As for the cash for clunkers program, the argument that it is stimulating or creates jobs ignores the opportunity costs that arise from such a program--note that the ecological argument is separate, and may be justified. First, you have the taxpayers having to pay for it or you have it add to our national debt. In addition, you hurt the people that really needed those clunkers. Say, a college student who can't afford to pay a car loan every month, and has only 3000 dollars to pay for a used car. Taking a large number of cars that student would have use for out of the market by offering $4500 for them and subsequently destroying them is going to make suitable used cars much harder for that student to find.

I only recommend that, before one makes arguments about how great of a stimulus some government program is, one look at the opportunity costs, who it's going to hurt.

----------

On a separate note, I request that you delete your comment at August 9, 2009 4:00 PM. I was able to delete my comments, and I only ask that you delete that one comment.

Justin Patrick said...

I also wanna make clear there were other opportunity costs that I missed. You have to think about them for a while.

Saint Dude said...

@Justin

I am fairly certain most of the posters on this blog understand the concept of opportunity cost without having read Bastiat.

Opportunity costs exist for nearly every imaginable activity, including sitting here and expressing your opinions. That is not to say that opportunity costs always outweigh the benefit of any particular action.

As to the example you have provided: Yes, clunkers are being taken off the road and destroyed. Yes, this is decreasing the pool of used cars that college students can choose from. But that is not to say that there are not still PLENTY of used cars in the market. It is not as though those poor students are going to have to go without a car, or are even going to have to pay significantly higher prices.

As for other opportunity costs of this particular program, most are in the future. The most obvious being that people buying a car today probably won't be buying a car in the next couple of years. Similarly, in regards to the environment, fuel efficiency standards are set to rise dramatically in a couple of years, the cars that are being bought today are very likely less fuel efficient than those that will be bought in the future.

Although real, such future opportunity costs ignore our very real and very current economic crisis. If large numbers of people continue putting off purchasing decisions to a later date, our economy will continue to contract and it will take considerably more time, capital, and pain to dig ourselves back out of the resulting hole. In this regard, $1 of economic activity today may be worth as much as $2 of comparable activity 2 years from now.

If one is trying to head off a depression, or trying to stop the economic free fall that is the great recession, timing is everything.

Mike in Maryland said...

Saint Dude,

On your point of getting out of a Depression, you are so correct. Economists now know how to slow or stop rampant inflation - clamp down on the money supply, and in the US and Europe, it is the Fed or Central Bank that has the tools to do that, usually by forcing interest rates up.

When it comes to deflation, not much the Central Banks can do about that. The consumer won't buy today if they can put off the purchase until tomorrow, next week or next year if they figure out the price will drop the longer they wait. Only increasing the confidence of the consumers in the economy can stop deflation, and that has to come from the political leadership. And that is especially true for 'big ticket items', such as major appliances, vehicles, homes, etc.

I really don't see the GOOPers trying to instill any confidence in the economy into the consumers, just a constant barrage of 'NO! NO! NO!' If they keep it up, and the Dems fail because of the effort the GOOPers are putting into defeating Obama, but doing nothing FOR the country or the economy, I fear we may be in for an era of deflation of historical proportions.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/0284889341225109596

Saint Dude said...

Regarding Justin's point about the clunker program removing used cars from the market:

Most of the people that have utilized the CFC program probably would not have been buying a new car or selling their used one this year if the program did not exist. Thus, most of the used cars in question would not have been entering the used car market in the near future. So I seriously doubt that the hypothetical college student has been inconvenienced in the slightest (at least for now).

According to wikipedia, there were 250,851,833 registered passenger vehicles in the United States in 2006. Removing 500,000 of vehicles from a pool this size is a drop in the bucket. Thus, even in the future there will still be PLENTY of used cars to go around.

gbthrone said...

There's no Social Security "free ride" for those with incomes over $100k. There's a marginal FICA tax rate of 0% for income amounts over $100k. It's the sam regressive rate for incomes between $1 and $100k. Second SS point. When enacted, one of the big points was it would get the "old farts" over 65 out of the work force, thus opening up jobs for the unemployed during the Great Depression. It was also designed as a safety net for those whoseretirement savings were wiped out by the bank failures during 1929--1934.

markymark said...

I think the big point re Bastiat and the Cash for Clunkers program, from my albeit short skim of Bastiat's work is that Bastiat tends to look at the individual, at least in the abstract. CFC doesn't seem to me to be in the abstract at all. Entirely the opposite in fact, it's a very practical scheme to get money flowing in an industry that needs it. Obviously given time their may be drawbacks, Bastiat seems to me to suggest that you shouldn't do something, whatever the positive affects, if there are drawbacks. I find fault in that idea.

Justin Patrick said...

markymark,

He looks at different individuals who have different wants and needs. He is saying, Yes, you can see that the policy is great for this group over here, but look what about this group here or that group there?

Yes, you are assisting the auto industry with this, but what about the other industries, such as the ones doing well? Why are you hurting them in order to help prop up an auto industry whose market had to be corrected due to the direction in which it was helping?

Saint Dude was saying that the costs would just be pushed to the future, but isn't that significant, too? Isn't pushing costs to the future something we've been doing for the past several decades already? When are we ever going to have to pay them? Saint Dude also limited what those costs were to a lower number of auto sales in the future, which is true, but there are other costs, such as the college student I mentioned earlier not being as productive, the government having to borrow more money to pay for it (crowding out investment in other industries), and all of this combining to make us poorer in the long run. And all this so that a group of zombie companies can continue to maintain their bottom line.

In addition, this system props up current auto prices, and prevents them from becoming more affordable, meaning that those who take advantage of cash for clunkers are encouraged to buy cars where the have to take out car loans, and pay off that note every month. In other words, we're creating more debt!

I know that among the Keynesians, sitting back and having liquidation occur in the failed businesses sounds bad, and it is, but if such liquidation occurs people will save (just as the have been doing now), and the assets the companies in bankruptcy are trying to get rid would have to be devalued to the point where they could be sold. With this combination of saving and investment in the cheaper assets by individuals who were smart during the boom, did not overextend themselves, and are willing to put their money where their mouths are (that is, take risk), the economy would be on its way. And not only that, we wouldn't be deep in debt, neither would we be worrying about the value of the dollar! Liquidation seems like it would be tough at first, but in the long run sounds like a much better scheme than trying to pressure individuals to continue to overextend themselves financially and continue to dig themselves deeper into debt, which is our real problem!

Does the government intend to create a new bubble, this time in the auto industry? The last time was in the housing industry, where government sponsored enterprises (GSE's), such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were willing to pay good money for subprime mortgages no matter how bad they were--the purpose was to help lower class individuals own homes of their own. This created a major moral hazard in the economy by almost totally eliminating the risk in lending money to people who weren't that well off while making it profitable, so banks and other companies jumped right in. Is the government trying to cook something up that is like that?

Justin Patrick said...

Moral hazard is where a party acts differently where there is no risk to trying to gain something compared to where there is risk.

Let's say for example there is a person and that person had a guarantee that if he made money playing blackjack, he would be able to keep it, but if he lost any money, he would be reimbursed. This is a situation of moral hazard for that person, because that person is going to play very aggressively to try to make a profit, because there is no downside risk. So he is going to double down on every hand, split 10s, etc., because so what if he loses.

This was a common situation for the banks in lending to high-risk individuals for the most of the 1990s and 2000s, in that they can make the loans, sell them to a GSE, and take the money and run. They didn't have to worry about that high-risk individual possibly not paying them back.

This situation has been in existence throughout history. You can see this having occurred in during Andrew Jackson's time, when the Second Bank of the United States created a similar situation. (Read Andrew Jackson's speech where he called the bankers "a den of thieves and vipers," and you'll see that Andrew Jackson was referring to a system of moral hazard that existed in his time, that is very similar to what is going on now with regards to real estate, banking, and the auto industry.)

Justin Patrick said...

I'm sorry, that should read "a den of vipers and thieves."

Bob said...

To ballyhoo a federal tax cut when state and local tax increases are more than offsetting it, AND when it’s obvious that tax cut can’t last for any period even close to those – careful, I’m going to use a hateful word here – Mr. Bush’s did/have, would likely be perceived as disingenuous at best; lying at worst. When there’s no upside to the claim, let it be.

William said...

Attention! There is March on Washington being organized in SUPPORT of healthcare reform. Please visit our site and sign up to attend what will hopefully turn out to be an historic event.

www.marchformedicare.org

Thank you and hope to see you there.

Blah bleh blue said...

There can be no stimulus to an economy using debt financing. It is a tax on everyone by lowering the value of the dollar.

Denae said...

This may have already been brought up in the comments and I missed it, but it seemed a point worth reiterating, even if that is the case.

First, let me preface by saying that I am absolutely in favor of Making Work Pay.

My understanding of Making Work Pay, based on my own research into it, communications I have received from my employer (a major payroll processing provider,) and warnings that are on the IRS website, is that it is an adjustment to the withholding tables, but *not* to the actual tax tables. For the majority of people, this is a distinction that probably will escape their notice. People tend to have too much withheld from their paychecks during the year, which is why so many of us get those nice refund checks. Right now, because of Making Work Pay, anyone who did not adjust their Form W-4 as a result of the credit, is having less federal income tax withheld than they were prior to the implementation of the program. However, for those individuals who typically receive a very small refund, or none at all, there is the possibility that, all other factors remaining the same, they will owe more in April.

From my understanding, the theory behind the program is that people are far more likely to spend a small added sum on a weekly, bi-weekly, or semi-monthly basis than they are to spend a lump sum received from the government. The idea is that this is a form of stimulus that will stimulate the economy over the course of the year, while really only delaying the Treasury's receipt of the funds. I believe I read that many people think that an almost identical program under Carter was the most, if not the only, successful program of his administration.

So, while Making Work Pay is definitely a help to most of us now, I do not think it is technically accurate to classify it as a tax cut.

That being said, there is obviously time for a change to be made to the tax tables.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,