[luke warm]

TimG, on 2012-November-13, 14:29, said:

Maybe they voted not to repeal Roe v Wade and not to reinstitute DADT. To think that the election was a referendum on any one issue is pretty silly, IMO.

i never said it was about one thing (i named two, and added etc etc to show that very thing)... i'd still rather the reps do what i posted above and let everything the dems want pass thru w/out opposition... the prez and dems deserve a chance to see just how right their policies are, they did win

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-November-13, 16:31, said:

i'd still rather the reps do what i posted above and let everything the dems want pass thru w/out opposition... the prez and dems deserve a chance to see just how right their policies are, they did win

But then what will the democrats be able to blame the republicans for?

[y66]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-13, 08:12, said:

As a practical matter, though, it might turn out best to let the tax cuts expire naturally. That would give the Norquist republicans a chance to vote for a tax cut even if the new tax rates are higher than we pay now.

Good idea.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-13, 16:34, said:

But then what will the democrats be able to blame the republicans for?

why didn't i think of that?

[y66]

Guest post from Warren Buffett excerpted from today's NYT opinion page:

Quote

I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of “reforming” the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like “carried interest” that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it’s sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.

But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can’t let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.

Our government’s goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won’t stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America’s debt stable in relation to the country’s economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

[mike777]

as you noted in passing and many people forget the real issue is often just how do you define taxable income..not so much rates..

Keep in mind the more pages, I mean thousands of pages, you add to the tax code the more people hire other people to avoid taxes.

For every action there will be a reaction.

[kenberg]

A Washington Post op-Ed this morning, by Senator Bob Corker http://www.washingto...6cc9_story.html

Part of it:

Quote

The proposal includes pro-growth federal tax reform, which generates more static revenue — mostly from very high-income Americans — by capping federal deductions at $50,000 without raising tax rates. It mandates common-sense reforms to the federal workforce, which will help bring its compensation in line with private-sector benefits, and implements a chained consumer price index across the government, a more accurate indicator of inflation. It also includes comprehensive Medicare reform that keeps in place fee-for-service Medicare without capping growth, competing side by side with private options that seniors can choose instead if they wish. Coupled with gradual age increases within Medicare and Social Security; the introduction of means testing; increasing premiums ever so slightly for those making more than $50,000 a year in retirement; and ending a massive "bed tax" gimmick the states use in Medicaid to bilk the federal government of billions, this reform would put our country on firmer financial footing and begin to vanquish our long-term deficit.

"increasing premiums ever so slightly for those making more than $50,000 a year in retirement"
This would apply to me and I support it, even if it goes beyond ever so slightly, but with a proviso. Maybe it could be called the Grover proviso
I voted for Obama. I have friends who voted for Romney. As far as I know, no one voted for Grover Norquist. Speaking of metaphorical cliffs, it is way past time for him to be thrown over one. I would think our elected representatives would be pretty tired of looking like a bunch of patsies (I choose my description with the censor in mind). Dump the Grove. People have given their lives for this country and if Medicare needs a bit more to balance the budget, let me know where to send the check. But we have to seriously address this as a problem for everyone, and that very much includes the rich everyones.

[mike777]

Wow the states are guilty of bilking the federal govt out of billions..wow

http://www.ajc.com/n...g-loser-/nS9hH/


I did just say for every action there will be a reaction.

[Bbradley62]

PassedOut, on 2012-November-13, 08:12, said:

As a practical matter, though, it might turn out best to let the tax cuts expire naturally. That would give the Norquist republicans a chance to vote for a tax cut even if the new tax rates are higher than we pay now.

We had something similar to that here in Fulton County, GA, about 7 years ago. There had been a temporary (2-year, I think) reduction in the millage rate (the property tax rate) which was set to expire at the end of the year; with no new government action, the rate would return to the previous level. When the County Commission met to set the millage rate for the following year, Democrats proposed making it about halfway between the reduced rate and the previous rate. Republicans (led by Karen "Susan G Komen Cuts Ties With Planned Parenthood" Handel) said "no, we won't vote for a tax increase, and if we approve this proposal then next year's rate will be higher than this year's rate, so that would be a tax increase". Dumbasses!

[hrothgar]

It's interesting to watch the discussions around capping deductions.

[mycroft]

...compensation in line with private-sector benefits...

So, for the rank-and-file federal employee, it continues the Walmart race-to-the-bottom; for the higher-grade federal employee, it incentivises moving into the private sector, where they get the same benefits, but much higher pay rates. So we get lower-grade higher-grade employees, which will obviously improve results.

Government jobs (here and down South), and pseudo-government jobs like teachers, police and firefighters have used the lure of secure future and more secure present (in terms of not "at-will" contracts, and more difficulty in firing than outside) to pull in the people with the skills to make mondo cash as a lawyer, accountant, policy wonk, and such (I note that I never hear, when discussing "trimming the public sector", removal of lawyers or their support structure. I wonder why?)

I think what we need to do is bring compensation in the private sector in line with public-sector benefits. Might that just require the people at the top going back to 1950's style 8-1, 10-1 compensation (oddly enough, that's in line with public-sector CEOs which we think are "massively overpaid") in order to maintain profitability? Hmm, maybe.

[mike777]

I think what we need to do is bring compensation in the private sector in line with public-sector benefits

ok how do we do that?

[dwar0123]

mycroft, on 2012-November-26, 12:28, said:

10-1 compensation (oddly enough, that's in line with public-sector CEOs which we think are "massively overpaid")

I doubt the average employee at kraft foods is making 2.5 million annually.

[phil_20686]

So I have a few points, but no obvious solutions.

Minimum wage


Once, I, like most conservatives, thought that the minimum wage was "obviously a bad idea". It seems so logical that a company should pay its employees roughly their marginal productivity, and that therefore a minimum wage will reduce the number of jobs without increasing the pay of employed people. Thus I was surprised to find the empirical evidence was contrary, and that it does raise wages for the lowest paid.

Eventually I realised my error: The labour market(s) actually have two states, in the first, when the economy is at full employments, employees hold the power, their labour is in demand, and they can keep demanding higher wages up to their Marginal Productivity. In such a regime, clearly a minimum wage does not help anyone. However, in the second state there is slack labour, and companies hold the power. Then you get a race to the bottom in wages, as the unemployed compete with each other for jobs. In this situation wages can fall far from their workers Marginal Productivity.

Now, you might argue that recessions are rare, but in actual fact, there are often sectors of the economy which are, in effect, in recession, due to technological changes, which leads to massive oversupply of certain skill sets, and so there is oversupply of labour in certain segments, so I think regime two is actually more common and more relevant than the full employment one.

So I have changed my mind, and support the minimum wage.

Mortgage Deductions


I think that housing is one of the best long term investments a country can make. The cost of actually building a house is so minimal compared with the value you get out of it in the sixty to two hundred years that a good house will last. There seems no reason at all that rich countries like the UK and the US should not build really high quality social housing, in sufficient numbers that largish middle class houses along side efficient mass transit systems could be within the reach of even lower income families. I think that good city planning, and taking a long term view of building nice medium density housing is something that municipal governments can do very well, and that it would make a big long term increase in the quality of life. (You can compare the housing stock+infrastructure of somewhere like Germany to the UK and its clear that they are well ahead, and consequently that housing prices are cheaper and people have more disposable income).

Mortgage deductions, incrementally increase the amount of investment in housing, by raising the price people can pay for first homes. Consistent with this, we should cap it at roughly the price of the homes we are trying to build more of, so that we do not subsidise the building of mansions!

Child Benefit


So, whether you use this as a tax deduction, or straight up cash, it is one of the few government benefits that is unambiguously a good idea. One useful way to think about it is as consumption smoothing over a lifetime. Typically, you want parents to have children quite young, 25-30, but in today's economy you tend to earn most at the end of your life, when you have most experience and your children are no longer dependent. It makes sense to try to smooth consumption over a lifetime by, in effect, transferring wealth from when you have more money and fewer dependants, to when you have less money and more dependants. Further, a generous child benefit is an investment in the children. Insuring children have sufficient support makes them more productive future citizens, and I am fairly certain that the best way to maximise children's welfare for a given number of $$ is to give it directly to the parents. Sure, there are bad parents, but the norm is for parents to try their best to give their children a good life. Money helps.

Even if you don't have children, child benefit is a good idea. The idea of `saving for retirement' as if one is a self contained entity is somewhat strange. In the end, once you stop working you are supported by the production of the working age people. If there was no one to work, you would be very poor, regardless of the number of $ you had saved.

[mycroft]

mike777, on 2012-November-26, 14:18, said:

[Me:]"I think what we need to do is bring compensation in the private sector in line with public-sector benefits."

ok how do we do that?

If I knew that, I'd be in politics rather than IT. I think that incentivising the market to not have 1000-1 payment pyramids might help. I think that laws that make it cheaper to remove skilled knowledge and manufacturing bases out of the country (or, perhaps, lack of laws that don't) would help.

dwar0123, on 2012-November-26, 14:47, said:

I doubt the average employee at kraft foods is making 2.5 million annually.

Yeah, I don't think that's the way I was suggesting we fix the "treat labour like people rather than 'resources', while still maintaining profitability" problem...

[quiddity]

The mortgage interest deduction is a tough nut to crack. I agree that it doesn't make much sense and probably should be eliminated somehow, but the effect on recent home-buyers would be disastrous.

[Bbradley62]

quiddity, on 2012-November-26, 18:23, said:

The mortgage interest deduction is a tough nut to crack. I agree that it doesn't make much sense and probably should be eliminated somehow, but the effect on recent home-buyers would be disastrous.

It can be phased out, like the credit card interest deduction was 20 years ago. That was a five-year phase-out, with 80% of cc interest deductible in the first year, 60% in the second, etc. The mortgage deduction should probably be a ten-year phase-out.

[WellSpyder]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-26, 19:03, said:

It can be phased out, like the credit card interest deduction was 20 years ago. That was a five-year phase-out, with 80% of cc interest deductible in the first year, 60% in the second, etc. The mortgage deduction should probably be a ten-year phase-out.

it was phased out in the UK by setting a maximum amount of mortgage that was covered. When it was set, the limit of £30,000 was more than the large majority of mortgages taken out, so it was viewed as a sensible limit to avoid subsidising mortgages on mansions. After years of inflation, the limit started to affect more and more mortgages, but it was never increased. By the time it was finally abolished, it was hardly noticed since most mortgages were for much more that £30,000.

[WellSpyder]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-26, 16:24, said:

Mortgage deductions, incrementally increase the amount of investment in housing, by raising the price people can pay for first homes.

Except that (in the UK at least) most of the increase in price goes into the cost of the land needed to build on, rather than into building a better house.

[phil_20686]

WellSpyder, on 2012-November-27, 05:11, said:

Except that (in the UK at least) most of the increase in price goes into the cost of the land needed to build on, rather than into building a better house.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons that the housing market has always seemed ripe for government intervention. Such things are always easier said than done.

In the UK, there is already massive government intervention, to build social housing. My real bug bear is that such a lot of it is such poor quality. Glasgow, for example, has been redeveloping a bunch of social housing sites that are younger than me(!), because the fabric of the buildings was so poor. It seems like, if you are going to build social housing, you should do it properly, by (1) building better quality housing to start with, and (2) doing maintenance for your tenants.

(2) Is necessary because many council tenants fail to properly maintain their houses. Its pretty cheap to repair things straight away compared with later.

There are many other countries in the world, nordic and germanic countries particularly, but also singapore, and probably some others, that seem to have done much better than the UK in terms of providing high quality housing at reasonable prices. I'm not sure exactly how, but I am sure the government is to blame! (I think better mass transit systems are key, think of say, berlin, where housing is mega cheap compared to london, and the whole city feels spacious.