PDA

View Full Version : One more Time


hcap
01-28-2014, 07:49 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/unemployment-benefits-food-stamps-economic-impact

Let's do this one more time.

Charts: Unemployment Benefits' Big Bang for the Buck

http://www.motherjones.com/files/BangForBuck-Final.gif

Beyond helping Americans in need, economists say that programs like unemployment insurance and food stamps generate high returns on investment, especially during recessions. According to data fromhttps://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2012-02-07-JEC-Payroll-Tax.pdf every dollar spent on a temporary increase in food stamps contributes another $1.67 to the economy. A buck of extended unemployment kicks in $1.49. Compare that with the impact of a corporate tax cut—32 cents on the dollar.

"Using the deficit for something like unemployment insurance—that's a multiplier—is a good thing," says Josh Bivens, the director of research and policy at the Economic Policy Institute. "They're shock absorbers, not bad things." Unemployment benefits tend to get spent right away on needs like groceries, for example. Chad Stone, the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains that as long as you don't raise taxes or cut spending from other programs, this type of spending trickles up, giving the overall economy an added boost.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/bangforbuck-01.png

sammy the sage
01-28-2014, 08:00 AM
So accordlingly if we gave EVERYBODY temp. food stamps...why everything WOULD BE awesome... :lol: :D :rolleyes: :faint:

Must be THAT NEW common core math...where a $1 can BE WORTH more...long as you can BS and somebody else bites... :lol: :D :rolleyes: :faint:

DJofSD
01-28-2014, 08:11 AM
Let's confiscate every dollar from the private sector and then give it back and with the magic of redistribution, we'll all be millionaires.

delayjf
01-28-2014, 08:33 AM
The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal think tank. Like the IPCC - garbage in - garbage out.

Tom
01-28-2014, 09:19 AM
Bought any land in /Florida lately, hcap? :lol::lol::lol:

chrisl
01-28-2014, 09:22 AM
If anyone even thinks there is any truth to that chart, then I have a good pick for ya it is in the 5th at headupmyrear race track and casino.

DJofSD
01-28-2014, 09:24 AM
Don't be too hard on the lad, boys.

Perhaps like in the movie "Citizen Kane" at the end we'll hear "Santayana! Santayana!"

Clocker
01-28-2014, 10:25 AM
Let's confiscate every dollar from the private sector and then give it back and with the magic of redistribution, we'll all be millionaires.

The article says you can't get the money by taxation or cuts in other spending. It only works if you borrow the money. What they don't say is that it doesn't work if you borrow the money domestically, because that is a shift is spending from alternative uses of the the money. such as business investment. Even Mother Jones knows that redistribution is a crock. So all we have to do is borrow a few trillion more from China and we'll all be millionaires.

HUSKER55
01-28-2014, 10:34 AM
are you guys implying that we can't spend ourselves rich? :rolleyes:

Clocker
01-28-2014, 10:37 AM
are you guys implying that we can't spend ourselves rich? :rolleyes:

But just like in real life, you can borrow yourself rich, and leave the debt to your heirs.

HUSKER55
01-28-2014, 10:40 AM
soooo.....you are going to loan me money? :eek: :D

Clocker
01-28-2014, 10:49 AM
soooo.....you are going to loan me money? :eek: :D

Much as I would love to, the money can't be borrowed internally, because that leaves me with less to spend to stimulate the economy. The money has to come from foreign sources. You know any rich folks in China?

hcap
01-28-2014, 11:55 AM
"Using the deficit for something like unemployment insurance—that's a multiplier—is a good thing," says Josh Bivens, the director of research and policy at the Economic Policy Institute. "They're shock absorbers, not bad things." Unemployment benefits tend to get spent right away on needs like groceries, for example. Chad Stone, the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explains that as long as you don't raise taxes or cut spending from other programs, this type of spending trickles up, giving the overall economy an added boost.

There are constraints in this case, which you all missed in your haste to call Keynesian economics wrong once again

Clocker
01-28-2014, 12:18 PM
explains that as long as you don't raise taxes or cut spending from other programs, this type of spending trickles up, giving the overall economy an added boost.

There are constraints in this case, which you all missed in your haste to call Keynesian economics wrong once again

That's exactly what I said in post #8 above.

Keynes himself once said that you can increase demand by borrowing money and hiring people to dig holes and fill them in again. Obama found out that you can't, and said, ""Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected."

Keynes also said that the multiplier on such spending was around 3 or 4. The numbers in the article cited are obviously much lower, but many studies show those estimates are too high. As with other issues, such as global warming, the experts do not agree. The estimates in the cited work are on the high end. Other estimates on the low end show a multiplier of less than 1.

Clocker
01-28-2014, 12:26 PM
Bought any land in /Florida lately, hcap? :lol::lol::lol:

If you invest wisely at the right elevation, you could end up with double waterfront property, with the ocean on the east and the gulf on the west.

Tom
01-28-2014, 12:58 PM
I'm buying land in Ohio.
Maybe when the oceans rise, I will end up with boardwalk property!

JustRalph
01-28-2014, 01:50 PM
Trickle up is the new Dem buzz phrase

It's appearing in their emails etc

In fact they want to trickle down your leg and convince you it's raining

Clocker
01-28-2014, 02:14 PM
Trickle up is the new Dem buzz phrase

It's appearing in their emails etc

In fact they want to trickle down your leg and convince you it's raining

I think that's what happened to Chris Matthews. He had a trickle down his leg and a thrill up his leg at the same time, and it short-circuited his brain.

I wonder if ObamaCare covers that?

mostpost
01-28-2014, 02:46 PM
Let's confiscate every dollar from the private sector and then give it back and with the magic of redistribution, we'll all be millionaires.
That is a straw man. No one is suggesting that we take anything that anyone already has. At least no one with any sense.

Here is what I propose.
Taxes:
Maintain the present tax rates up to $400,000
45% on earnings between $400,000 and $1,000,000
50% on earnings between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000
60% on earnings over $5,000,000
Capital gains taxes the same as for regular earned income with the ability to deduct for losses over several years.
Tax credits or deductions for money reinvesting in growing the business and in increasing salaries or hiring workers.

Wages.
$ Increase in minimum wages on an annual basis to at least $15 an hour plus Cola by 2020. Or you could opt for 7 UP. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Strengthened unions so workers have a fair and equal seat at the bargaining table.

delayjf
01-28-2014, 03:01 PM
Wages.
$ Increase in minimum wages on an annual basis to at least $15 an hour plus Cola by 2020

The cola would be a killer in NY and CA. State Unions would love the increase in minimum wage as a lot of Contracts are indexed to the minimum wage. In CA I'm for anything that would bankrupt the cities and state the fastest. That way we could start all over.

tucker6
01-28-2014, 03:02 PM
That is a straw man. No one is suggesting that we take anything that anyone already has. At least no one with any sense.

Here is what I propose.
Taxes:
Maintain the present tax rates up to $400,000
45% on earnings between $400,000 and $1,000,000
50% on earnings between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000
60% on earnings over $5,000,000
Capital gains taxes the same as for regular earned income with the ability to deduct for losses over several years.
Tax credits or deductions for money reinvesting in growing the business and in increasing salaries or hiring workers.

Wages.
$ Increase in minimum wages on an annual basis to at least $15 an hour plus Cola by 2020. Or you could opt for 7 UP. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Strengthened unions so workers have a fair and equal seat at the bargaining table.
I really like your last point. I want to relive the 70's/80's aftermath of unions running amok. The economic malaise of the 70's and the long, deep recession of the 80"s were fun times. Let's do it. :cool:

mostpost
01-28-2014, 03:04 PM
The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal think tank. Like the IPCC - garbage in - garbage out.
The data did not come from the Economic Policy Institute, nor did it come from Mother Jones. Mother Jones did convert the data into a graph. Josh Bivins of EPI
was merely commenting on data from another source.
The data came from written testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on Feb. 7, 2012. The person giving the testimony was Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Analytics.
Per Wikipedia, Moody's Analytics is:
a subsidiary of Moody's Corporation established in 2007 to focus on non-rating activities, separate from Moody's Investors Service. It provides economic research regarding risk, performance and financial modeling, as well as consulting, training and software services. Moody's Analytics is composed of divisions such as Moody's KMV, Moody's Economy.com, Moody's Wall Street Analytics, the Institute of Risk Standards and Qualifications, and Canadian Securities Institute Global Education Inc.
I do not think anyone would label Moody's as a liberal think tank.

You can access Mr. Zandi's testimony by going to the Mother Jones story and clicking on the Moody's analytics link in the second paragraph.

mostpost
01-28-2014, 03:08 PM
I'm buying land in Ohio.
Maybe when the oceans rise, I will end up with boardwalk property!
__________________
I'm not full of it, but I am close to the brim!
Tom is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote Reply Quick reply to this message
Unread Today, 11:58 AM #17
Tom
Registered User

Tom's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 61,922
vCash: 1310
I'm buying land in Ohio.
Maybe when the oceans rise, I will end up with boardwalk property!


We heard you the first time.

Tom
01-28-2014, 03:14 PM
Sorry about that.
Sorry about that.

reckless
01-28-2014, 03:22 PM
Sorry about that.
Sorry about that.

That's OK, I still liked the post.

That's OK, I still liked the post.

davew
01-28-2014, 03:33 PM
soooo.....you are going to loan me money? :eek: :D

who said anything about a loan, just give it to the guy:D

delayjf
01-28-2014, 03:34 PM
The data did not come from the Economic Policy Institute, nor did it come from Mother Jones. Mother Jones did convert the data into a graph. Josh Bivins of EPI

Fine, but Clocker has already pointed out the dubious nature of the conclusions.

Question:
Have you ever considered what the cost of living would be if wages had in fact keep up with Profits?

Clocker
01-28-2014, 03:37 PM
45% on earnings between $400,000 and $1,000,000
50% on earnings between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000
60% on earnings over $5,000,000
Capital gains taxes the same as for regular earned income with the ability to deduct for losses over several years.

Those are your proposals for federal marginal rates? Are you aware that there are people today that already pay more than half of their total income in taxes (federal, state, etc.)? Do you really think that it is "fair" for the government to take more than half of your earnings?

Are you aware that efforts to avoid paying taxes increases directly in proportion to tax rate increases? And that when income tax rates reach those confiscatory levels, virtually no one pays those rates? Are you aware that historically, as the capital gains tax rate goes up, the total revenue from that tax goes down, and vice versa?

mostpost
01-28-2014, 05:23 PM
Are you aware that historically, as the capital gains tax rate goes up, the total revenue from that tax goes down, and vice versa?
I was not aware of that. Mainly because it is not true. According to the tax policy center there have been nine occasions since 1954 in which the capital gains tax has gone up. Here is what happened in each of those cases.
1. From 1967 to 1968 the top rate increased by 1.9%.
Revenue went up 44.5%.

2. From 1968 to 1969 the top rate increased by .8%.
Revenue dropped by 11.2%

3. From 1969 to 1970 the top rate increased by 4.71%
Revenue dropped by 40.1%, but there was a recession in 1970.

4. From 1970 to 1971 the top rate increased by 2.09%
Revenue increased by 37.6%

5. From 1971 to 1972 the top rate increased by 2.25%
Revenue increased by 31.2%

6. From 1975 to 1976 the top rate increased by 3.37%
Revenue increased by 46%

7. From 1986 to 1987 the top rate increased by 8 %
Revenue dropped by 36.2%

8. From 1990 to 1991 the top rate increased by .93%
Revenue dropped by 10.5%. Again, there was a recession in '90-'91

9. From 1990 to 1991 the top rate increased by .26%
Revenue increased by 24.5%


So five of the nine times we had an increase in the top capital gains tax rate it was accompanied by an increase in revenue from that tax. An increase ranging from 24.5% per year to 46% per year. Four times we had a decrease in revenue corresponding with a raise in the rate. Two of those decreases came during years in which we were in a recession.

Summarizing, your statement is a lot of hooey.

DJofSD
01-28-2014, 05:33 PM
Go ahead, let them raise the minimum wage. That'll sooner rather than later, cause the fast food industry to adopt more automation and robots. Bye bye entry level jobs but at least some of us will be a bit healthier when we stop going to those fast food vendors.

Can I cross post this in the investments forum? It's a binary: long the robot makers, short the BK's, etc.

Clocker
01-28-2014, 06:21 PM
So five of the nine times we had an increase in the top capital gains tax rate it was accompanied by an increase in revenue from that tax. An increase ranging from 24.5% per year to 46% per year. Four times we had a decrease in revenue corresponding with a raise in the rate. Two of those decreases came during years in which we were in a recession.

Summarizing, your statement is a lot of hooey.

You cite some small changes for short periods, conveniently leaving out the latest and the greatest.

In 1997, Bill Clinton signed a tax bill that cut the rate from 28% to 20%.

In 1996, the year before the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28 to 20 percent, net capital gains on assets sold were roughly $335 billion. A year later, capital gains had leapt to $459 billion. (The tax cut was retroactive to May 1997.) In 1996 the Treasury collected roughly $85 billion in capital gains revenues. In 1997 those tax payments jumped to $100 billion.

In 2003, the rate was cut from 20% to 15%.

After the 2003 capital gains cut, federal revenues increased in four years by $740 billion. CGT revenues grew from $55 billion in 2002 to $110 billion in 2006. Every indicator demonstrates that the 2003 CGT cut helped increase growth, share values and federal tax revenues.

Source (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1572484)

delayjf
01-28-2014, 06:31 PM
So five of the nine times we had an increase in the top capital gains tax rate

Now, the increases in Capital gains rates you quote are incremental compared to the increases you list for Income taxes. I believe that’s what Clocker is referring to with regards to tax avoidance.

Now, you have many times declared that higher taxes rates leads to an increase in employment as employers hire more to reduce their tax burden. Again can you provide one example of a company increasing their work force for the sole reason of reducing their tax burden?

DJofSD
01-28-2014, 06:46 PM
Jeff, CA used to subsidize an employers payroll when they hire under specific incentive programs. That was along time ago and I don't know if those programs exists any longer. That is the only time I know when an employer has ever hired and had their tax burden lowered -- at least the payroll tax.

mostpost
01-28-2014, 08:20 PM
You cite some small changes for short periods, conveniently leaving out the latest and the greatest.

In 1997, Bill Clinton signed a tax bill that cut the rate from 28% to 20%.



In 2003, the rate was cut from 20% to 15%.


Source (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1572484)
There is something wrong with your link.
Click on "Source" and you will see what I mean. It does not take us where you think it does.

mostpost
01-28-2014, 08:55 PM
You cite some small changes for short periods, conveniently leaving out the latest and the greatest.

In 1997, Bill Clinton signed a tax bill that cut the rate from 28% to 20%.



In 2003, the rate was cut from 20% to 15%.


Source (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1572484)
The figures below are from here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
In 2002 the Total realized capital gains were $268,615,000,000.
Revenue from that was $49,122,000,000.

In 2006 Total realized capital gains were $798,214,000,000
Revenue from that was $117,902,000,000

Capital gains increased 2.97 times but revenue increased only 2.39 times. If lower taxes result in higher revenues shouldn't the increase in revenue outstrip the increase in capital gains realized?

To put it another way;
If the tax rate is 20% and the amount being taxed is $100, the tax collected is $20. If you lower the tax rate by 5% to 15%, the amount of money you need to tax in order to collect $20 rises to $133.35. The economy has to improve by more than 33% to offset a 5% drop in the tax rate.

Clocker
01-29-2014, 02:35 AM
Capital gains increased 2.97 times but revenue increased only 2.39 times. If lower taxes result in higher revenues shouldn't the increase in revenue outstrip the increase in capital gains realized?


There is no way to tell. As my econometrics professor was fond of saying, the world is not linear. No matter the strength of correlation or causation between those variables, given the large number of other factors influencing them, many of them unknown or unmeasurable, it is impossible to predict their relative change.

hcap
01-29-2014, 06:20 AM
http://www.epi.org/publication/methodology-estimating-jobs-impact/#_edn2

.... Josh Bivens From the original Mother Jones article

...The second step is to apply a macroeconomic multiplier to the $50 billion fiscal impulse. Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics’ Economy.com (MAEC) has provided some of the most transparent estimated multipliers in this debate, and his overall forecasts for economic developments have been quite accurate in recent years.(2) EPI often uses these MAEC multipliers. The Congressional Budget Office also has published a transparent, comprehensive set of multipliers. As shown in Table 1, the MAEC multipliers generally are very close to CBO’s, which signals their robustness. Further, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) also has estimated multipliers that, while providing less-detailed policy specifications, are very much in line with CBO and MAEC.

Look at Table 1 at the Bivens article

(2) Congressional Budget Office. 2011a. Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from April 2011 Through June 2011. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Look at Table 1