From the Record:
New Jersey’s economic recovery still wobbly
The New Jersey economy has so far replaced just about 40 percent of the jobs it lost from the recession.
In contrast, Connecticut has replaced 55 percent, Pennsylvania has replaced nearly all, and New York had done so by late 2012, adding 150,000 jobs since.
So how does New Jersey’s lackluster job creation square with figures released by the federal government last week that showed the state’s economic output grew faster last year than any of its three neighbors?
Economists say the longer-term trend shows that New Jersey’s GDP and job growth — as well as those of some nearby states — still clearly trail the nation’s. And the state’s recovery remains stymied by a lack of room for growth and the declines of key industries.
These issues are central to New Jersey’s economic picture as the state struggles with a jobless rate that — at 6.9 percent — is worse than those of all but eight states.
Because the GDP figures released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis will be revised, economist say the difference between New Jersey and its neighbors is not very meaningful. The state’s GDP grew 1.1 percent in 2013, while Connecticut’s grew 0.9 percent, and New York and Pennsylvania’s grew 0.7 percent. GDP represents the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced.
Yet the three-year trend, from 2011 to 2013, also shows New Jersey’s output was stronger than its employment performance would suggest. The trend shows that New Jersey’s output growth — about 3.2 percent over the period — was only slightly behind Pennsylvania’s growth of 3.3 percent and New York’s 3.7 percent. All three outpaced Connecticut’s growth of 1 percent over three years.
That doesn’t convince Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors of Pennsylvania, who said the figures merely show that the states are all behind the nation, which had GDP growth of 1.8 percent in 2013. The national GDP grew by 6 percent from 2011 to 2013.
New Jersey and Pennsylvania in particular are “underperforming,” he said.
“Jobs are being created, but at a very disappointing pace in both,” he said. “It is just a weak economic recovery, both in absolute terms and in comparison with the nation.”
Patrick O’Keefe, director of economic research at CohnReznick in Roseland, said New Jersey’s weakness is demonstrated by the state’s faltering GDP growth since the start of the recession, at the end of 2007.
New Jersey’s inflation-adjusted GDP is still slightly below the 2007 figure, while the U.S. GDP is 4.7 higher than the pre-recession peak, O’Keefe said. New York’s also is higher than the pre-recession figure, by 5.9 percent, as is Pennsylvania, which is 3.5 percent higher. Connecticut, meanwhile, is 5.2 percent below the 2007 level.
The figures also showed that New Jersey’s GDP in 2012, 2.6 percent, matched the national growth of 2.5 percent, but when the U.S. GDP declined to 1.8 percent in 2013, New Jersey’s plunged faster, to 1.1 percent.
“Objectively, there is no question that in 2013, New Jersey grew at a faster pace than Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania,” O’Keefe said. But, he added, “cumulatively, one year is not a trend.”
New Jersey and Connecticut’s poor performance stems in part from their being high-income, high-cost states that have little easily developable land available, and that makes it tough to attract new businesses, O’Keefe said.
FRIST you bastages!
As in any marriage, once you live apart, divorce is easier
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/15/is-america-dangerously-divided/?hpt=hp_t4
Did someone yell “fire”? Because I’m seeing a rush for the exits.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101760661
FWIW, last night Bloomberg reported that Medtronic disclaimed any tax savings. In fact, I foresee that virtually every press announcement for deals like this will state that “the company does not expect any changes to its effective tax rate at this time”. Vague and forward-looking, and if it gets revised later, no one is gonna sue over it.
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
The True Cost of Hidden Money
A Piketty Protégé’s Theory on Tax Havens
By JACQUES LESLIE JUNE 15, 2014
Photo
Credit Tucker Nichols
GABRIEL ZUCMAN is a 27-year-old French economist who decided to solve a puzzle: Why do international balance sheets each year show more liabilities than assets, as if the world is in debt to itself?
Over the last couple of decades, the few international economists who have addressed this question have offered a simple explanation: tax evasion. Money that, say, leaves the United States for an offshore tax shelter is recorded as a liability here, but it is listed nowhere as an asset — its mission, after all, is disappearance. But until now the economists lacked hard numbers to confirm their suspicions. By analyzing data released in recent years by central banks in Switzerland and Luxembourg on foreigners’ bank holdings, then extrapolating to other tax havens, Mr. Zucman has put creditable numbers on tax evasion, showing that it’s rampant — and a major driver of wealth inequality.
Mr. Zucman estimates — conservatively, in his view — that $7.6 trillion — 8 percent of the world’s personal financial wealth — is stashed in tax havens. If all of this illegally hidden money were properly recorded and taxed, global tax revenues would grow by more than $200 billion a year, he believes. And these numbers do not include much larger corporate tax avoidance, which usually follows the letter but hardly the spirit of the law. According to Mr. Zucman’s calculations, 20 percent of all corporate profits in the United States are shifted offshore, and tax avoidance deprives the government of a third of corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax avoidance has become so widespread that from the late 1980s until now, the effective corporate tax rate in the United States has dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, Mr. Zucman found, even though the tax rate hasn’t changed.
Mr. Zucman, an assistant economics professor at the London School of Economics, is part of a wave of data-focused economists led by his mentor, Thomas Piketty, of the Paris School of Economics. Mr. Zucman’s short book on tax evasion, “The Missing Wealth of Nations,” was a best seller in France last year.
Mr. Zucman’s tax evasion numbers are big enough to upend common assumptions, like the notion that China has become the world’s “owner” while Europe and America have become large debtors. The idea of the rich world’s indebtedness is “an illusion caused by tax havens,” Mr. Zucman wrote in a paper published last year. In fact, if offshore assets were properly measured, Europe would be a net creditor, and American indebtedness would fall from 18 percent of gross domestic product to 9 percent.
Only multinational corporations and people with at least $50 million in financial assets usually have the resources to engage in offshore tax evasion. Since the less wealthy continue paying taxes, the practice deepens wealth inequality. Indeed, newly invigorated efforts in the United States to curb personal tax evasion, codified in the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, have armed the Internal Revenue Service with strong sanctions to levy on foreign banks that fail to disclose accounts held by American residents. This has made it “more difficult for moderately wealthy individuals to dodge taxes,” Mr. Zucman says, while the richest account holders still have more elaborate evasive techniques at their disposal.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
“There’s a profound shift in attitudes that happened in the 1980s,” Mr. Zucman says. “In the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, taxes were much higher, yet it was not considered normal to try to aggressively minimize your tax bill and even to evade taxes.” He finds it “no coincidence” that the era of widespread tax evasion began in the Reagan era, with the rise of the idea that government is a beast that must be starved.
Companion piece to [2]
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/politics/pew-survey-society-polarization/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29
I’ve been watching this issue somewhat peripherally to see if it ever gained any traction. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is. Sociologically, (and I disclose I never studied sosh), divisions were an easily foreseeable result of the struggle for neccesities. As the pie shrinks, we start to fight over it. Indeed, I theorize that only our exceptional growth as a country (indeed, the entire notion of American Exceptionalism) and the advent of periodic, external events that rally the nation, has kept us a nation.
I think we are still years, and probably decades, from seeing whole swaths of the country as deeply red or blue, but if that ever comes to pass, and the centrifugal forces in society start to predominate over the centripetal ones, it’s game over and we resemble the baltics.
[4] b1tch
If Zucman wants a boogeyman, he need look no farther than his nearest mirror.
Evasion is a response to uncertainty. The uncertainty is economic collapse, regime change, unpredictable tax policy, and other policy risks.
Reagan fundamentally changed the tax code in 1986. If, as liberals maintain, that was a boon to the wealthy, evasion should have declined under Reagan, not increased.
I have also noted the same effects that Zucman noticed. In fact, they were rather pronounced. You could sense a fundamental shift, a belief that you had better make it and protect it now because when the music stops next time, it may not start again. This is a major factor in evasion. But it didn’t start under Reagan, it started under Clinton.
thanks W, thanks a lot. it is all thanks to you, W
@CNBC:
How the collapse of Iraq could affect the U.S.
• http://t.co/lCnghSUbWa http://t.co/q0yegegzAe
3. Tariff all of their products sold in the USA. They will wish to pay taxes again.
[7] anon
For once, you are correct. W started this. And by your criticism, you are saying we never should have deposed Saddam Hussein.
you are saying that, right? I mean, you have to be. In fact, that is exactly what the left was saying back then (we should contain, vacuum, yadda, yadda) but interestingly I’m not hearing the left show Saddam any love now. Still, as the invasion and deposing of Saddam was the destabilizing event, it must be true-there isn’t an alternate scenario.
If you blame W for the ills of Iraq, you necessarily fault the decision to invade and depose Saddam.
I just want to hear you affirm it.
[8] Phoenix
They do pay an additional tax on their products. It was passed as part of Obamacare.
I’m all for a tariff war. Just let me know when it’s about to go down as I want to go on a spending spree beforehand.
Nom, if you are asking my permission to make your argument, yes, you have it. go ahead
9. The left and right outside the govt are very different.
The left and right inside the govt are one and the same.
There is a common bond if you look for it, and they have the same goal.
It’s called good cop, bad cop.
Both are trying to put you away for life.
Don’t think either one is on your side or your friend.
NJ caregivers for sick and elderly relatives seek more hospital support, poll says
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/njs_growing_number_of_caregivers_for_sick_and_elderly_relatives_seek_more_hospital_support_poll_says.html#incart_river_default
Here is the response from NJ legislators….
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/assembly_panel_to_debate_vote_on_assisted_suicide_bill_today.html
actually, I think a good number of people are pointing to O-man and his behavior relative to Syria, which has emboldened Russia, al-Qaida in Iraq and also Iran in southern Iraq….in short, he’s rather lift weights in the gym than stiffen his spine at all…..
anon (the good one) says:
June 16, 2014 at 8:46 am
thanks W, thanks a lot. it is all thanks to you, W
@CNBC:
How the collapse of Iraq could affect the U.S.
• http://t.co/lCnghSUbWa http://t.co/q0yegegzAe
[9] redux
In the coming weeks, look for a lot of new analysis on CNN, Huffpost, and MSNBC that seeks to recast the original debate of the Iraq war.
You will hear about how there were all these “options” for dealing with Saddam short of going to war that Bush and Cheney ignored. But the problem that will come up is that the options were either (a) deemed to be ineffective or inconsequential at that time, or (b) not even discussed at that time. The former is a difficult, but not insurmountable, challenge, but the latter is much harder to gloss over.
Then there will be the “Kerry” problem where you find people running away from the positions that they held back then. When the Iraq war started going south, the Democrats became critical but had a difficult time running away from their original votes and prior statements. Left with the choice of admitting to hypocrisy or stupidity, they chose the latter, no doubt because it is eminently believable.
[11] anon,
By showing an apparent utter lack of comprehension, you are displaying either abject stupidity or clumsy prevarication. I’ll leave it to you which to admit to.
And the question still stands: will you affirm that you believe it was a mistake to depose Saddam?
To be clear, the long range strategy has been for a good long while, get elected as a young man so he could be an ex-President as a young man. He may be the first modern President to view the office not as the pinnacle of a lifetime of achievement, but rather a great marketing tool for a lucrative public speaking career.
Nom: I’ll say it…..it was a mistake to depose Saddam. Pure money grab by Dr. Strangelove-Cheney…..
Comrade Nom Deplume, a.k.a. Captain Justice says:
June 16, 2014 at 9:14 am
[11] anon,
By showing an apparent utter lack of comprehension, you are displaying either abject stupidity or clumsy prevarication. I’ll leave it to you which to admit to.
And the question still stands: will you affirm that you believe it was a mistake to depose Saddam?
You should see no difference between invading Iraq and the ACA…….opportunists stuffing their pockets…..pigs all….
[14] chifi
Nature abhors a vacuum. O man isn’t stupid. ergo, he knew that when he pulled the US out of Iraq, other elements would fill that void, and since Western oriented powers weren’t going to fill it, Islamist ones would.
In sum, he knew it was likely, he withdrew anyway, so he was okay with it. He should own his decision. In fact, I will give him props because he is the only one on the left who isn’t blaming Bush for ISIS.
[18] chifi
You said it and I’ll say it. I just want to hear someone in anons camp say it.
But since I’ll grow old waiting and I have a 9:30, I’ll not wait here.
Horne threatens to sue feds over immigration transfers
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/horne-threatens-to-sue-feds-over-immigration-transfers/article_c6e4864f-bbe1-5cba-833d-26ca8560bf50.html
PHOENIX — Saying the busing is illegal, state Attorney General Tom Horne on Thursday threatened to sue federal officials for dropping off undocumented individuals in Tucson and Phoenix who were apprehended in Texas.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Horne said he can find no legal authority “for such arbitrary and injurious actions.” In fact, Horne said there is no authorization for federal officials to transporting those not in the country legally for any purpose other than to federal detention facilities.
Beyond that, Horne contends that moving the undocumented individuals from Texas to Arizona violates another federal law that requires Johnson’s agency “to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens.”
“Instead of doing that, they’re facilitating (illegal immigration) by bringing them to other states,” he told Capitol Media Services. He said it puts federal officials “in the business of picking up illegals who make it across the border and distributing them to other states, which is normally the job of the coyotes.”
And yeah, I said I wouldn’t engage the fool but it was fun destroying him so easily.
Bullhorn blowing loudly this morning on talk radio, both sides for and against intervention in Iraq. Expect Oil prices to spike which WILL force Obama to act.
Glenn Thrush @GlennThrush 11h
Here’s the only link I can find to my original 2008 Newsday story on Hillary’s 1975 defense of child rapist http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child#.U55aze29LCQ …
Glenn Thrush
@GlennThrush
@amychozick my then-editor appended a meaningless intro to the story, delayed and buried it because, in his words, ‘it might have an impact’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
Party like it’s 2007.
“Nothing is attractive. Bank loans are trading at low single digits. It’s a matter of pick the poison and hold on until the correction comes,” said Michael Lewitt, a bond investor and editor of The Credit Strategist.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes”
“Covenants have been stripped away, cov-lite is the norm, senior debt levels are actually higher than they were in 2007,”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101754954
Joyce, no one is stashing money?
Nom, you always bring up what is fair share. Do you call this contributing their “fair share”. If these idiots only realized what their greed is doing to our economy.
“Mr. Zucman estimates — conservatively, in his view — that $7.6 trillion — 8 percent of the world’s personal financial wealth — is stashed in tax havens. If all of this illegally hidden money were properly recorded and taxed, global tax revenues would grow by more than $200 billion a year, he believes. And these numbers do not include much larger corporate tax avoidance, which usually follows the letter but hardly the spirit of the law. According to Mr. Zucman’s calculations, 20 percent of all corporate profits in the United States are shifted offshore, and tax avoidance deprives the government of a third of corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax avoidance has become so widespread that from the late 1980s until now, the effective corporate tax rate in the United States has dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, Mr. Zucman found, even though the tax rate hasn’t changed.”
Comrade,
Good morning, and good job. You were able to bring up the Republican (and Democrat when necessary) boogeymen of economic and foreign policy “isolationism” within the first ten posts of the day. Impressive.
Retard,
Pick a definition of hoarding/stashing and stick to it … and then I’ll answer your question.
Retard,
Define quantitatively what the fair share is… and then he’ll answer your question too.
That’s the problem. It’s not a simple definition. I wish I was able to put it in simple terms that you are capable of understanding, but clearly, that is a major challenge.
joyce says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:21 am
Retard,
Pick a definition of hoarding/stashing and stick to it … and then I’ll answer your question.
You guys are such smart asses when you say “what the fair share is”. You know what it is. It’s the opposite of the current system, in which the people with the most pay 15% and the people with less are paying almost triple the percentage.
joyce says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:22 am
Retard,
Define quantitatively what the fair share is… and then he’ll answer your question too.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Video-shows-Fort-Worth-police-raid-that-left-man-dead-262965641.html
The raid took place on May 16th, 2013. So-called “Zero Tolerance Officers” from the Fort Worth Police Department staged raid on a suspected “drug house” with the intent of rounding up and imprisoning people for getting high without government permission.
NOTHING ILLEGAL WAS FOUND
After sufficiently terrifying everyone with the surprise assault, officers proceeded to force everyone to lie face down on the floor in handcuffs.
Jermaine “DJ” Darden, 34, who had been startled awake by the intrusion, received particular attention from police. Darden, a large man who weighed over 300 pounds, was having physical difficulties after being forced to the ground with several officers on top of him. He was physically unable to breathe in that position due to his asthma condition, heart disease, and the weight of the police officers.
Video also shows Mr. Darden being tasered at least twice — not because officers feared for their safety, but as a compliance tool. His body was painted with red laser dots, before a pop was heard as the sharp prongs of the device were thrust into his flesh. Sixteen seconds later, police jolted him again. Each jolt lasted for 5 seconds.
Witnesses said he was not resisting at all, only trying to breathe.
“He had his hands behind his back the whole time. But me and about five other people were hollering the whole time, ‘He cannot breathe like that. Please handcuff him on his side,’” said Randle. “But they ignored us and Tased him.”
Officers successfully handcuffed Mr. Darden, and eventually propped his limp body up into the sitting position. But he didn’t have long to live.
It took months for the medical examiner to declare an official cause of death. While some expected the death to be a homicide, it was instead announced that Mr. Darden died of “natural causes.” No culpability was placed on the officers’ use of force or the multiple electrical shocks. Officially, it was just a coincidence that he died during the raid.
Presented with a dismissive explanation for Darden’s death, a grand jury predictably let off the sole unnamed police officer who was reviewed for criminal liability.
The only solution to geographic tax avoidance is to move towards a consumption based tax, rendering the headquarters location irrelevant.
Internet sales should be taxed as well, since this is no different.
And now the trifecta – NJ needs to not only raise gas taxes, but establish a sales tax on clothes and food.
All for it, but want to couple it with the removal of the income tax (and hopefully truly reforming the property tax system as well)
grim says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:01 am
And now the trifecta – NJ needs to not only raise gas taxes, but establish a sales tax on clothes and food.
Retard,
In the past, you’ve said people investing was hoarding. You’ve said people spending was hoarding.
Michael says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:37 am
That’s the problem. It’s not a simple definition. I wish I was able to put it in simple terms that you are capable of understanding, but clearly, that is a major challenge.
#37…agreed, except leave clothes tax free, change rate to 8% …
Retard,
The point is, despite the current tax brackets, rates, and effective percentages… the overwhelming majority of tax is paid by the upper earners. And that’s still not enough (fair share apparently = more).
We should be more focused on the income side of the problem (gov funneling money to people directly/indirectly).
Michael says:
June 16, 2014 at 10:42 am
You guys are such smart asses when you say “what the fair share is”. You know what it is. It’s the opposite of the current system, in which the people with the most pay 15% and the people with less are paying almost triple the percentage.
40 – Tax on clothes seems like the easiest way to nail the 1% and other wealthy individuals.
Who buys $800 shoes and handbags?
Which is why other than Munis bonds I have not been buying any corporate type bonds since 2012. The yield is no where near the risk.
Also add in bonds in default pay between 15 and 45 cents on the dollar. Back when junk was trading at 70 cents on a dollar with a 12% yield you only needed 3-4 coupon payments combined with the default payout to break even in the event of a BK. Today buying Junk bonds at 110 with a 4% yield is crazy
Munis rarely default and when they do it is a “technical” default and rarely and actual default. I had one single muni bond in my history default and it was a “technical” default. Technical meaning they dropped muni bond insurance and dropped paying the rated agency. So bond now apprears as a non-rated and non insured bond meaning however with a 5.25% coupon more than happy to hold to maturity.
27.Juice Box says:
June 16, 2014 at 9:42 am
Party like it’s 2007.
“Nothing is attractive. Bank loans are trading at low single digits. It’s a matter of pick the poison and hold on until the correction comes,” said Michael Lewitt, a bond investor and editor of The Credit Strategist.
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes”
“Covenants have been stripped away, cov-lite is the norm, senior debt levels are actually higher than they were in 2007,”
37.
If taxing clothes will help stop my wife from buying it I’m all for it.
Why tariff solar panels and not clothes? Both are dumped into this country. What is the logic other than special interests?
Buybacks, junk debt, M&A for tax avoidance seems like a recipe for disaster. In our low-growth environment, the last thing a company wants to do is create additional capacity, all other cost savings will be tried first.
Que Grim and his outsourcing army….
Tony Gwynn < Vigoda
[33] michael
“You guys are such smart asses when you say “what the fair share is”. You know what it is. It’s the opposite of the current system, in which the people with the most pay 15% and the people with less are paying almost triple the percentage.”
You have said what you think it isn’t, not what it is. Further, no, we don’t know. If I knew (and it would be only an opinion, not a fact), I’d tell you.
Nowhere has anyone addressed what is “fair share.” And to be fair, no one can because it exists only in the mind of the beholder.
It would exist in a sense if all agreed upon it, even if only in compromise. And since we have representative government, and all representatives agree, if only in compromise and as a body, that the current system is what works, it is, ergo, “fair.”
Got a better plan? State it. Oh, and square it with our constitutional guarantees, our treaties, and have a plan in place to deal with all the externalities and distortions.
Otherwise, all this blather about fairness makes as much sense as the expiration of digestive gasses from your anus. And serve an equally useful purpose.
[44] phoenix
“Phoenix says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:41 am
37.
If taxing clothes will help stop my wife from buying it I’m all for it.”
Hell, yeah!!!!
Okay, I have fallen off the wagon twice today in order to destroy trolls. I’m not getting paid for this and it is starting to cause agita. Besides, have to get ready for my next appt.
Later
#42..I hear lots of NYers make trip into NJ for that 0% tax on clothes, probably spend money on other items as well….don’t have the numbers..makes sense
Jesus, you twist my words around. You are one of these annoying people who hear you say one thing, take it to the extreme, and try to use it against you.
Investing in jobs is not a problem. Investing in bs like art, or 50 million dollar apartments, is not really true investing. All you are doing is competing with other filthy rich individuals, driving up the price on these things to an unreal value. It’s just taking money that could be used to fuel economic gains in other areas of the economy, and forcing this money to sit on a stupid painting. All that value created in the economy, is now sitting on some f’n wall of someone’s home. The painting is not really worth that, but because this guy has nothing to do with 50 million dollars, he now takes money that could be growing the economy, and wasting it on some overvalued so called “investment”. How is 50 million being held up in a painting or some stupid apartment that they don’t even use, good for the rest of the participants in the economy? Please explain.
joyce says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:04 am
Retard,
In the past, you’ve said people investing was hoarding. You’ve said people spending was hoarding.
Nom and Joyce, please stop making the argument that the richest individuals pay the most tax. It’s so stupid. What % do they pay? I don’t care if they paid more taxes, they made a crap load of more money. This argument is useless. Yes, half of america didn’t pay an income tax, because they didn’t make enough to pay it. That’s the sad part, not that they didn’t pay, but they didn’t make enough to pay. Besides, with all the other taxes, these people are getting killed. They don’t make enough to pay an income tax, but then they have to go pay a sales tax, gas tax, and all these other taxes? Again, what is fair? “Fair” being that the people making the most money, paying the lowest % in taxes. Yes, they paid the most in taxes, but they didn’t pay a fair percentage based on what they made.
Comrade Nom Deplume, a.k.a. Captain Justice says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:46 am
[33] michael
“You guys are such smart asses when you say “what the fair share is”. You know what it is. It’s the opposite of the current system, in which the people with the most pay 15% and the people with less are paying almost triple the percentage.”
You have said what you think it isn’t, not what it is. Further, no, we don’t know. If I knew (and it would be only an opinion, not a fact), I’d tell you.
Nowhere has anyone addressed what is “fair share.” And to be fair, no one can because it exists only in the mind of the beholder.
It would exist in a sense if all agreed upon it, even if only in compromise. And since we have representative government, and all representatives agree, if only in compromise and as a body, that the current system is what works, it is, ergo, “fair.”
Got a better plan? State it. Oh, and square it with our constitutional guarantees, our treaties, and have a plan in place to deal with all the externalities and distortions.
Otherwise, all this blather about fairness makes as much sense as the expiration of digestive gasses from your anus. And serve an equally useful purpose.
Joyce, how are you sure they are paying a fair % of their earning in taxes, when you don’t even know what the hell they really make? You just don’t get it. Look at the quote below. Our global tax revenues would grow by 200 billion a year. That means god knows how much they are hiding.
“Mr. Zucman estimates — conservatively, in his view — that $7.6 trillion — 8 percent of the world’s personal financial wealth — is stashed in tax havens. If all of this illegally hidden money were properly recorded and taxed, global tax revenues would grow by more than $200 billion a year, he believes. And these numbers do not include much larger corporate tax avoidance, which usually follows the letter but hardly the spirit of the law. According to Mr. Zucman’s calculations, 20 percent of all corporate profits in the United States are shifted offshore, and tax avoidance deprives the government of a third of corporate tax revenues. Corporate tax avoidance has become so widespread that from the late 1980s until now, the effective corporate tax rate in the United States has dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, Mr. Zucman found, even though the tax rate hasn’t changed.”
joyce says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:09 am
Retard,
The point is, despite the current tax brackets, rates, and effective percentages… the overwhelming majority of tax is paid by the upper earners. And that’s still not enough (fair share apparently = more).
We should be more focused on the income side of the problem (gov funneling money to people directly/indirectly).
Michael you want to pay less or you want them to pay more which is it?
Riddle me this. Where does it all go?
Estimated tax recipients 2014.
Federal Direct Revenue $3.0 trillion
State Direct Revenue $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Reveue $1.1 trillion
Total Revenue $5.7 trillion
As a percentage of GDP 2014
Federal Direct Revenue 17% GDP
State Direct Revenue 9% GDP
Local Direct Reveue 6% GDP
Total Revenue 33% GDP
10 years ago tax recipients 2004.
Federal Direct Revenue $1.9 trillion
State Direct Revenue $1.2 trillion
Local Direct Reveue $0.8 trillion
Total Revenue $3.9 trillion
As a percentage of GDP 2004
Federal Direct Revenue 15% GDP
State Direct Revenue 10% GDP
Local Direct Reveue 7% GDP
Total Revenue 32% GDP
Juice [55];
Michael you want to pay less or you want them to pay more which is it?
The Iron Lady already answered that question for people like Michael, with its attendant consquences —
http://youtu.be/okHGCz6xxiw?t=1m
I just visited this site for the first time, but you can be sure that I will keep visiting
Joyce, how are you sure they are paying a fair % of their earning in taxes, when you don’t even know what the hell they really make? You just don’t get it. Look at the quote below. Our global tax revenues would grow by 200 billion a year. That means god knows how much they are hiding.
That amounts to about 10 helicopters for the white house.
I pay more than enough, if I have to pay more, it will actually hurt the economy. Why am I going to pay almost half of my income in taxes, while some hedge fund dude gets a 15% rate?
You have to realize that these individuals have payed a crap load of money to lobbyists to lower their tax rate. Their rate has only been going down for a long time. This is the govt’s revenue problem. They have been giving tax breaks to the people who make the most money, with the hope that these tax breaks will “trickle down” and get the economy going, or at least they use that as justification for the tax breaks. Doubt they actually believe that crap.
Anon E. Moose says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Juice [55];
Michael you want to pay less or you want them to pay more which is it?
The Iron Lady already answered that question for people like Michael, with its attendant consquences –
“He Would Rather The Poor Were Poorer, Provided The Rich Were Less Rich”
http://youtu.be/okHGCz6xxiw?t=1m
The End Is Nigh (Blunt Force Trauma Edition):
Indiana mother of 3 dies after vomiting out of moving minivan, striking her head
Amanda Ezra, 24, an Indiana mother of three, had been out drinking before she was killed. The driver of the minivan has been charged with a DWI.
Amanda Ezra was reportedly puking out of the front passenger’s seat window as the vehicle drove down an Osceola street at 4:40 a.m. when her skull was bashed against an unknown object, WSBT reported.
The 24-year-old, from Mishawaka — who’d recently enrolled at Ivy Tech in a bid to become a teacher — was declared dead soon after.
Amanda Ezra was reportedly puking out of the front passenger seat window as the vehicle drove down an Osceola street at 4:40 a.m. Sunday.
Cops claimed the driver and one of the other three passengers ran away soon after the horrible crash — but were later caught.
The driver, who’s not been named but is in his 20s and also from Mishawaka, was then arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, causing serious bodily injury and leaving the scene of an accident.
St. Joseph County’s Fatal Alcohol Crash Team investigators say Ezra fatally struck her head while leaning out the window.
St. Joseph County’s Fatal Alcohol Crash Team investigators believe Ezra, who’d been drinking, was sitting on the front seat passenger’s lap when the incident occurred.
Neighbors who live near the crash site described her death as “tragic.”
“You’ve got a 24-year-old child you’ve raised to be a young adult and has their whole life ahead of them,” Michelle Lyman told WSBT. “And it’s snuffed out because of a decision that was made and because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Ugh. The content here has really suffered since Michael showed up. Can we all just agree to stop feeding this troll. I know it’s hard as on a very rare occasion, he is actually shown the light. But it’s always short lived and then he goes back to swallowing whatever the mainstream media has on the specials board.
Anon is nearly equally as annoying, but as a party mouthpiece who does nothing but repeat what any of us could find ourselves on any left-wing media site, he is at least consistent and couldn’t see the light if it was burning his pupils. Michael could make a schizophrenic jealous.
re # 59 – “if I have to pay more, it will actually hurt the economy.”
Yeah Buffet, Gates, Koch, and any of the other 492 billionaires in the USA could make the same lame argument.
Nom’s definition of “fair”:
Fair is whatever the majority decides it is, and is agreed to by the minority.
If it is “unfair”, it will result in distortions, such as unproductive use of capital, redomestication, tax avoidance, deadweight loss, and outright evasion, all at a level that acts as a drag on the economy and revenue maximization.
I won’t postulate as to whether we are at that point.
Mn5ine efiwkqrrqlsp, [url=http://svnoatnzogqr.com/]svnoatnzogqr[/url], [link=http://ktsomalrxdis.com/]ktsomalrxdis[/link], http://rqulalvlagrb.com/
So does “fair” require unanimity of agreement amongst the minority in your definition?
[54] sybil,
If Zucman says its $8 trillion offshore, that represents a remarkable improvement over the last two years.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens
Keep on supporting our two party government which continues to legislate to the highest bidder and it does not really matter how many issues you cry out about regardless of whether they are blue, red, conservative, liberal, left, right, etc. The income gap grows because the rich bitches have paid their leaders to ensure it continues. The war in Iraq occurred/occurs because the rich bitches need to sell weapons. Wall Street gets bailed, because they pay mightily for their government insurance. Speaking of insurance, ACA is a big steamy turd because the insurance companies paid to make sure they would not suffer any consequences. Same can be said for our cluster fuk of a tax code. But go on and keep supporting your red and blue leaders. They really, really, really represent you.
I find that number remarkably small Nom.
43 JJ,
What do you think of Closed-End Muni funds?
Fair share: divide the total cost of government by the number of people in the jurisdiction served by said government. A single person would pay x dollars to the local, state and federal governments. A family of two parents and three children would pay 5x dollars.
Outofstater,
What you said (a capitation tax) is only 1 of 2 things that I could consider ‘fair’ or ‘equal’. The other being no taxes, just user fees.
Here’s a little something to get Joyce and Clot’s skin crawling:
http://minerva.dtic.mil/funded.html
[65] theo
Dissenters must be so few as to have no real effect should they engage in distortive behavior.
If they were paying closer to 50% as opposed to 15%, they might have an arguement. As of now, they have all the money, and are paying a lower tax % than me, f them! I shouldn’t even have to justify why that is not fair.
They accumulate the capital of millions of individuals combined, and you think they can replicate the same spending habits of millions of individuals combined? 75 billion is a crap load of money for an individual to accumulate. You don’t think negative consequences accompany that kind of capital accumulation in our economy?
Juice Box says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:17 pm
re # 59 – “if I have to pay more, it will actually hurt the economy.”
Yeah Buffet, Gates, Koch, and any of the other 492 billionaires in the USA could make the same lame argument.
Saddam is beginning to look like the good old days to me.
The enemy of my enemy still turns out to be my enemy.
Well said. This why I hate being branded a lefty for going up against a bunch of rich old guys that have rigged the system for themselves and their families. It’s not about a political system or your beliefs about politics. It’s only about the belief of doing what’s right and standing up for yourself against bullies. If you don’t think these billionaires use their money as a bullying tool on the rest of the population, you are naive. That’s why they keep accumulating the money, not to buy goods, but to buy power. Otherwise there would be no logic or ambition to make more than a billion dollars. Take power out of the equation, and what are you going to really do with 5 billion dollars?
Libturd in the City says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Keep on supporting our two party government which continues to legislate to the highest bidder and it does not really matter how many issues you cry out about regardless of whether they are blue, red, conservative, liberal, left, right, etc. The income gap grows because the rich bitches have paid their leaders to ensure it continues. The war in Iraq occurred/occurs because the rich bitches need to sell weapons. Wall Street gets bailed, because they pay mightily for their government insurance. Speaking of insurance, ACA is a big steamy turd because the insurance companies paid to make sure they would not suffer any consequences. Same can be said for our cluster fuk of a tax code. But go on and keep supporting your red and blue leaders. They really, really, really represent you.
Obumbles fiddles as the empire crumbles.
JJ,
@NewsBreaker:
DETAILS: GM recalls another 3.16M vehicles for ignition switch problems http://t.co/VAEBqvaNx7 @CNBC
“Q: I worked my way through college. Why can’t today’s students do the same?
Because public college costs have gone up so much, largely as a result of steep budget cuts by the state Legislature during the recession, on top of cuts made in the early 2000s. As recently as 10 years ago, an undergraduate resident at the University of Washington paid about $5,000 in tuition annually — the state picked up more than half the cost. Even with living expenses factored in, it would have been possible for a student working full time during the summer and part time during the school year to at least pay a good chunk of the cost through earnings.
College was an even better deal for students who graduated in the 1980s and 1990s, when the state paid 70 to 80 percent of the cost. (Of course, the minimum wage was lower, too.) If the state still picked up 80 percent of the tab, a year of undergraduate tuition at the UW would be less than $5,000.
Today, it’s not really possible to pay-as-you-go — even at the least expensive four-year public school in the state, Eastern Washington University. When living expenses are factored in, EWU costs about $18,000 a year, including nearly $8,000 in tuition and fees. That’s thousands more than what most students working full time in the summer and part time during the school year can earn.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023854233_higheredmythsxml.html?syndication=rss
80- check out the full article. Talks about myths with higher education costs
For those that are sane, I wanted to point out that the richest people generally pay the highest taxes, despite the myth perpetuated by Warren Buffet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/in-2013-the-top-1-will-pay-their-highest-total-tax-rate-since-1979/266764/
I just wrote two estimated income tax checks for Q2, over $100k combined, running at over a 40% combined Federal and State average rate. There is no loophole to get around these rates, as implied by the various income-enviers.
The one big force that could optically drive down the tax rate of “the rich” is the lower capital gains tax. Bill Clinton signed the first big reduction of rates for long term capital gains in 1997. This means, for example, that someone who built up a business or owned a stock for long periods of time, would not face deal-killing taxes on the sale of an appreciated asset. Thus a farmer could earn $70k per year for most his life working his farm, paying regular income tax rates each year, and then when he retires and sells his farm, he can probably sell it for about $500k. Did he suddenly become “rich” that year? No. He was cashing out of his business, and someone else will own it paying income taxes on the farm the next year. The lower tax recognizes that asset sales tend to be lumpy and large.
I’m listening to a series of philosophy lectures from Leonard Peikoff. He told a story from when he was in Philosophy grad school back in the 50s or 60s in NYC. In his ethics class, the professor asked the class to vote which was the most ethical of two countries: Country A had a system in which the richest citizens were 1000 times more rich than the poorest citizen. Country B had exactly equal incomes for all citizens, at a level 10% lower than that of the poorest citizen of Country A.
Peikoff was the only student in the classroom to vote for Country A.
This should tell you something about the intellectual though leaders in this country. And maybe our trolls should change careers and become professional philosophers?
Capital gains taxes don’t hurt the rich. They punish people who are trying to get rich.
so keep them on the rich and eliminate them on the poor.
I’m cool with it
Transfuse the Cadaver says:
June 16, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Capital gains taxes don’t hurt the rich. They punish people who are trying to get rich.
no doubt
Michael says:
June 16, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Well said. This why I hate being branded a lefty for going up against a bunch of rich old guys that have rigged the system for themselves and their families. It’s not about a political system or your beliefs about politics. It’s only about the belief of doing what’s right and standing up for yourself against bullies. If you don’t think these billionaires use their money as a bullying tool on the rest of the population, you are naive. That’s why they keep accumulating the money, not to buy goods, but to buy power. Otherwise there would be no logic or ambition to make more than a billion dollars. Take power out of the equation, and what are you going to really do with 5 billion dollars?
Libturd in the City says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Keep on supporting our two party government which continues to legislate to the highest bidder and it does not really matter how many issues you cry out about regardless of whether they are blue, red, conservative, liberal, left, right, etc. The income gap grows because the rich bitches have paid their leaders to ensure it continues. The war in Iraq occurred/occurs because the rich bitches need to sell weapons. Wall Street gets bailed, because they pay mightily for their government insurance. Speaking of insurance, ACA is a big steamy turd because the insurance companies paid to make sure they would not suffer any consequences. Same can be said for our cluster fuk of a tax code. But go on and keep supporting your red and blue leaders. They really, really, really represent you.
Rag’s I’m not super wealthy but federal, state and fica, puts me near 50% in income taxes before talking about other taxes. Tell me again how I don’t pay my fair share?
Rags, two comments I agree with from the article you posted.
“viper333 Guest • 4 months ago
We only have highest “published” tax rates the actual taxes on the wealthy were the lowest in history under GW Bush. The Tax rates from the 1950’s had the wealthy paying almost 50% in taxes. We boomed as this money built up our infrastructure and made it’s way down to the middle class who are the demand engine. the earnings are pooling at the top again and under GW Bush the top 1% got 23% of all earnings, the same as on the eve of the Great Depression–when the middle class collapsed. Sorry but we are heading for another depression unless we get rid of “trickle down’. Sorry you have been duped by Billionaire propaganda–V”
Barnadine_the_Pirate Ammyth • a year ago
The reasoning for lower capital gains rates is specious and there is no data to support the idea that the lower rates do what their billionaire supporters say they do. But there are a number of hedge fund managers who are really grateful that there are useful middle-class idiots who will defend the carried interest dodge.
“Income is income is income and there is no reason why the income of rich people should be taxed at a lower rate than the income of working people. There is no reason why money you get from shuffling paper is somehow “better” than money you get from actually having a job. Money that a working class person spends on rent, food, clothes, etc., is more valuable to our consumer-based economy than money that a billionaire puts in a Cayman Islands shell corporation.”
The reason the libs should be pushing for a move towards consumption taxes is there are more opportunities for the low and middle class to cheat taxes.
Primarily, I would see the development of a massive black market in barter focused specifically of the avoidance of paying consumption tax. Think of all the new opportunities.
Are you worth over 50 million? If not, you truly are not a true 1%er in a position to take advantage. I’m wealthy compared to the avg citizen in this country and world, but I’m no where near the true 1%er. You have to be worth at least 50 million to just start getting some of the advantages of this crew.
Why do you defend these people?
Btw, I agree, your example is messed up with the farmer, but what’s the alternative. Let him sell land, that he inherited, which is now worth a lot of money, and sell it, without paying taxes? Don’t sell it then and you won’t pay any taxes. This farmer is crying about paying taxes on money made from an investment. Since this farmer only makes 70,000 dollars a year, he should be allowed to have tax exempt status on money made from investments? If he wants to sell his land and profit from it, he has to pay taxes on that profit. Bottom line. Too bad nobody wants to pay taxes when they make money.
“Only multinational corporations and people with at least $50 million in financial assets usually have the resources to engage in offshore tax evasion. Since the less wealthy continue paying taxes, the practice deepens wealth inequality. Indeed, newly invigorated efforts in the United States to curb personal tax evasion, codified in the 2010 Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, have armed the Internal Revenue Service with strong sanctions to levy on foreign banks that fail to disclose accounts held by American residents. This has made it “more difficult for moderately wealthy individuals to dodge taxes,” Mr. Zucman says, while the richest account holders still have more elaborate evasive techniques at their disposal.”
Ragnar says:
June 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm
For those that are sane, I wanted to point out that the richest people generally pay the highest taxes, despite the myth perpetuated by Warren Buffet.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/in-2013-the-top-1-will-pay-their-highest-total-tax-rate-since-1979/266764/
I just wrote two estimated income tax checks for Q2, over $100k combined, running at over a 40% combined Federal and State average rate. There is no loophole to get around these rates, as implied by the various income-enviers.
The one big force that could optically drive down the tax rate of “the rich” is the lower capital gains tax. Bill Clinton signed the first big reduction of rates for long term capital gains in 1997. This means, for example, that someone who built up a business or owned a stock for long periods of time, would not face deal-killing taxes on the sale of an appreciated asset. Thus a farmer could earn $70k per year for most his life working his farm, paying regular income tax rates each year, and then when he retires and sells his farm, he can probably sell it for about $500k. Did he suddenly become “rich” that year? No. He was cashing out of his business, and someone else will own it paying income taxes on the farm the next year. The lower tax recognizes that asset sales tend to be lumpy and large.
Aside, of course, from all the illegal aliens working off the books to avoid paying taxes today.
These folks are as crooks just the same as the crooked bankers.
90- rags, based on what you say about your income, you should be jumping on my boat. Do you understand that you are just like me, you are taking the hit for these other people not paying their true cost of taxes. We all pay close to 50% or more, after all taxes are said and done. What % are the guys worth 50 million or more paying? What % are the people with no jobs or min wAge paying? Rags, you might not realize it, but you are just like me. Only difference, you attack the poor, while I attack the rich. Attacking the poor is not going to do crap for us. You have to attack the people influencing policy to get some change around here.
Exactly, but no point in attacking these people. The attack has to begin with the people who allow this, so that they can take advantage of cheap labor. Your energy must be focused on the people that will affect policy.
grim says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Aside, of course, from all the illegal aliens working off the books to avoid paying taxes today.
These folks are as crooks just the same as the crooked bankers.
Rags, if you were making 2 million a year, it will still take you 25 years, with no taxes or spending, to accumulate 50 million. Does this put into perspective how fuc!ed we are in our competition with the 1%. You can make 2 million a year, which is a lot of money, and not even come close to these guys. My head hurts anytime I think about what it takes to get to 100 million, or better yet, a billion dollars. It’s insane. If I made the kind of money it takes to reach a billion dollars, I could care less about paying more in taxes than the little guy. The amount I pay in taxes in one year, would be more than 95% of the population will make in a lifetime.
“I just wrote two estimated income tax checks for Q2, over $100k combined, running at over a 40% combined Federal and State average rate. There is no loophole to get around these rates, as implied by the various income-enviers.”
[35] grim has this exactly right. I don’t know what the right number is, but something like a 25% tax on everything bought probably works out great for everyone. If all tax is built into what you buy, nobody avoids paying in and the people who buy the most pay the most. Along the same lines, I think some Euro countries build auto insurance into the price of gasoline. You can’t drive a car without being automatically insured as your car won’t run without “premium”;-)
The only solution to geographic tax avoidance is to move towards a consumption based tax, rendering the headquarters location irrelevant.
When my armed pack controls a good swath of western NJ, you will pay me a tax in order to get near the river.
Guess you guys on here were right. Robots are taking over. Did JJ crowdsource this?
http://vimeo.com/91265854#at=13
Last night, Colbert was going off on the robot threat. It has truly gone mainstream.
Save the robots.