Merry Christmish

[j_b]

so basically, you are telling us we should resign ourselves to the idea of the looters running the economy as if it were their private casino and of course plan on boom and bust cycles, including the kind we only have once or twice a century (every single time Laissez Faire zealots run the show btw)

 

and especially don't forget to give them the opportunity to starve the beast and destroy employee unions under the pretense of fixing their mess.

Edited December 28, 2010 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

While I think the pension issue needs fixing, I have sympathy for the state because of the boneheaded voters who don't want to be taxed to invest in education, technology, or infrastructure. Anytime a state runs a surplus the neocons start banging on the door claiming they are overtaxed and demanding a refund.

 

Take WA where the voters have continually voted for less taxes, even very focused ones on nonessentials such as candy and soda. You are stuck trying to patch together some forward looking programs with glue and popcicle sticks.

 

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation. When times get tough the avg. person can't just give themselves a pay increase, but that's what the gov't continually does through taxation.

 

Why is it that the gov't needs proportionally more and more (larger percentage) of what the citizens produce? Seems to me there should be some sort of equilibrium level with very little variation over time. Instead we see an upwards trending slope.

[Jim]

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation. When times get tough the avg. person can't just give themselves a pay increase, but that's what the gov't continually does through taxation.

 

Why is it that the gov't needs proportionally more and more (larger percentage) of what the citizens produce? Seems to me there should be some sort of equilibrium level with very little variation over time. Instead we see an upwards trending slope.

 

You make a valid point - and that is why I think it needs to be worked at both ends. Looking at the recent Ferry DOT scandal for instance - when asked about why supervisors were signing off on millions of dollars of un-needed overtime, DOT's head came back with -"...supervisors were not aware that part of their duties were to keep down unnecessary costs." Ok, well that added a lot of confidence to the voters to shovel more cash into the system.

 

On the other hand - voters are very short-sighted these days and lacking in confidence for long-term progrmas. Likely changes in the first problem would help this second one.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

On the other hand - voters are very short-sighted these days and lacking in confidence for long-term progrmas. Likely changes in the first problem would help this second one.

 

Indeed, and in the meantime some shit that needs to get done stagnates.

[prole]

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation.

 

 

Those voters should probably turn down the talk-radio.

 

How Much Did the Bush Tax Cuts Cost in Forgone Revenue?

 

There is no definitive answer to the question of how much the Bush tax cuts cost the Treasury in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010...

 

...The only place we could find a recent hindsight estimate of the cost of the Bush tax cuts came from the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice who used it as an opportunity to compare the Bush tax cuts' cost to health care reform. According to CTJ, the Bush tax cuts that were passed up through 2006 (the 2001 and 2003 cuts as well as other smaller cuts in 2004, 2005 and 2006) ended up costing the Treasury approximately $2.1 trillion in foregone revenue from 2001 to 2010. CTJ claims that if you add interest payments, that number goes up to around $2.5 trillion.

 

These numbers were calculated using CTJ's ITEP model. From what we could tell from their methodology paper, they assumed no feedback effect that would generate additional revenue. With that caveat, there is no reason to doubt these numbers. Therefore, the $2.1 trillion cost ($2.5 trillion with interest) on the Bush tax cuts is a high-end estimate. Note that also included in CTJ's $2.1 trillion estimate is the cost of annually adjusting AMT, which was technically not part of most of the "Bush tax cuts." (The annual cost of "patching" AMT went up as a result of the Bush tax cuts because the Bush tax cuts reduced mostly regular income taxes and taxpayers pay the higher of their regular income tax and their alternative minimum tax.)

 

Using CTJ's numbers, if one assumes that 20 percent of the tax cuts paid for themselves (overall), the non-interest cost would be approximately $1.7 trillion. If one assumes that half of the tax cuts paid for themselves (which we would consider to be a pretty extreme assumption), then the tax cuts would have cost around $1 trillion over the past 10 years.--from here.

[Jim]

so basically, you are telling us we should resign ourselves to the idea of the looters running the economy as if it were their private casino and of course plan on boom and bust cycles, including the kind we only have once or twice a century (every single time Laissez Faire zealots run the show btw)

 

 

Yea, that's what I'm saying.

 

But if you can't admit that changes need to be made to the way promised pensions are funded or that things like automatic, year-in-grade pay increases, share of medical coverage costs, and some wasted overtime need to be reviewed - then there is going to be little conversation with the public on raising taxes.

[prole]

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation.

 

 

Those voters should probably turn down the talk-radio.

 

Governor Gregoire and Legislative Leaders Announce Tax Cuts for Workers and Employers

For Immediate Release: December 4, 2006

 

Unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation rate reductions for employers and workers build on a record of job growth and tax cuts

 

OLYMPIA – Governor Chris Gregoire and leaders of the Washington State Senate and State House of Representatives today announced that Washington employers will save an estimated $89 million in business taxes next year because of lower premiums for unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance. Governor Gregoire has also proposed a six-month suspension of a portion of workers’ compensation premiums that next year would save employers and workers another $315 million, bringing the total savings to more than $404 million.

 

Governor Gregoire has made job growth a top priority. Since taking office, more than 150,000 new jobs have been created. Over half of the additional jobs are in construction and in professional services, such as employment and legal services, accounting, architecture and computer design. Washington was recently ranked by Forbes Magazine as the 12th best state for business and The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked the state as fifth best for small business and entrepreneurship.

 

“In a global economy, we have to fight every day to create family-wage jobs by recruiting business and helping existing businesses expand,” said Governor Gregoire. “By working closely with employers and finding ways to cut taxes, we are making sure we remain open for business.”

 

The Department of Employment Security (ESD) will reduce unemployment-insurance taxes in 2007 an average of 13 percent, for a savings of $58.4 million. The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) will reduce workers’ compensation premiums next year by an average of 2 percent, for a savings of $31 million.

 

Of the total savings of $404 million, at least $48 million will go specifically to small businesses. For example, approximately 67,000 small businesses in the lowest tax bracket will be paying less than half of what they would have paid in unemployment-insurance taxes in 2005.

 

The proposed workers’ compensation rate suspension would occur in the second half of 2007, when the rate paid by workers and employers into the Medical Aid Fund would be reduced to zero for a period of six months. Public hearings on the proposal will be held later this month.

 

“The savings we’re talking about today are proof that the Democratic leadership is not only looking out for workers, but that we’re also helping ensure businesses all across Washington prosper,” said Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane.

 

“Creating a healthy economy for One Washington means we constantly look for ways to reduce costs for businesses, large and small,” said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler. “We are proud of Governor Gregoire for taking this step.”

 

The Legislature and Governor Gregoire approved the unemployment-insurance tax cut earlier this year. According to ESD, rate reductions will range from an average of 2 percent for businesses in the highest rate class to a 25.5 percent reduction for businesses in the lowest rate class. Notices about the rate changes will be sent to more than 194,000 Washington employers by mid-December.

 

L&I’s rate reduction and its proposed partial rate suspension are possible because of higher-than-expected investment earnings and the agency’s success at controlling health-care costs. In addition, employers and workers have contributed to a declining frequency of workplace injuries and illnesses.

 

If the proposed workers’ compensation rate suspension is adopted, a wood-frame building contractor who employs 25 full-time workers and has an average claims experience would save about $22,000 over the six-month suspension. A vegetable farmer with a similar number of employees and claims experience would see savings of about $5,300.

 

In the case where employers deduct the workers’ comp premium from their employees’ paycheck, the average savings next year in agriculture would be $267 per worker. In food processing and manufacturing, the savings would average $378. Health-care workers and employers would save, on average, $153 per worker next year. The worker and employer would equally divide this savings.

 

“Governor Gregoire and employers have told us they want predictable, stable workers’ compensation rates,” said Judy Schurke, acting director of the Washington Department of Labor and Industries. “We are achieving that goal with our proposed rate suspension and the 2 percent rate decrease.”

 

Due to tax cuts passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire since 2005, with continued savings through 2009, the cost of doing business in Washington has been reduced by nearly $241 million. The measures signed by Governor Gregoire include B&O tax exemptions for dairy, seafood and fruit and vegetable processors; a B&O tax reduction for the timber and wood products industry; expansion of aerospace tax incentives; and sales tax exemptions that reduce costs for farmers.

[prole]

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation.

 

 

Those voters should probably turn down the talk-radio.

 

Washington state Sens. Murray, Cantwell support Obama's tax cut deal

 

WASHINGTON — Democrats Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington voted yes Monday as the Senate cleared the way for a final vote on an $858 billion tax package that will allow Washington residents to deduct the sales tax they paid on their 2010 and 2011 federal returns.

 

The compromise package of tax cuts, negotiated by the Obama White House and Republican leaders with congressional Democrats mostly on the sidelines, would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two years for all taxpayers regardless of income. Extending those tax cuts for all was a top Republican priority.

 

Cantwell and Murray supported a motion to cut off debate and bring the bill to a vote. The final vote in the Senate could come midweek and in the House by the end of the week.

 

Murray said Republicans had held the tax cuts for the middle class “hostage” in order to secure tax cuts for the richest Americans.

 

“The Republican game plan is simply irresponsible,” Murray said. “Extending benefits to those who need them least and adding to our deficit is wrong. But I could not sit back and allow taxes to be raised on Washington state families who are just struggling to get by.”

 

Among the few provisions in the bill Murray liked were the extension of unemployment benefits and state sales tax deductions.

 

“Unfortunately, protecting the vast majority of Washington families came with an unnecessary and irresponsible provision for a few Americans who aren’t facing the same hardships,” she said. Cantwell also cited the sales tax deduction as a reason for her support.

 

“The legislation includes measures important to Washington state, particularly a two-year extension of the sales tax deduction, which delivers tax fairness and keeps nearly a billion dollars in Washington state’s economy over the next two years,” she said in a statement.

 

The sales tax deduction saves Washington state’s roughly 1 million taxpayers between $350 million and $500 million annually on their federal returns. By some estimates, the deduction has put an average of $600 more per year in the pockets of Washington state taxpayers. It was set to expire at the end of this year.

 

The deduction was eliminated in 1986 when the federal tax code was simplified.

 

Taxpayers who lived in states with an income tax, however, were allowed to continue deducting state income tax on their federal returns. Washington state does not have an income tax.

 

The sales tax deduction was restored in 2004, but Congress has refused to make it permanent.--from here.

[j_b]

so basically, you are telling us we should resign ourselves to the idea of the looters running the economy as if it were their private casino and of course plan on boom and bust cycles, including the kind we only have once or twice a century (every single time Laissez Faire zealots run the show btw)

 

 

Yea, that's what I'm saying.

 

I am not making up that you want us to plan for cyclical speculative bubble burst. wtf?

 

But if you can't admit that changes need to be made to the way promised pensions are funded or that things like automatic, year-in-grade pay increases, share of medical coverage costs, and some wasted overtime need to be reviewed - then there is going to be little conversation with the public on raising taxes.

 

until you resolve your differences with Baker's and Johnson's arithmetic and identify correctly the cause of state budget shortfall, I am afraid you won't be able to address our problem, whether or not reforms are needed in the long term.

[Jim]

Oveall tax reveunes are down. Pension fund issues are a seperate issue because no matter what the economy was, is, or is going to be - they are under funded. WTF?

 

I'm not hearing any solution that does not involve raising taxes - which has been dismissed (rightly or wrongly) by the public in WA. So provide a Plan B here that involves something that we, in WA, have control over. Anything, really! Or is this just another arm-waving exercise?

[j_b]

are pensions the cause of our having to cut public services? No, so there is no need to echo the drumbeat of the demagogues.

 

what solutions do we have: 1) raise revenue 2) cut spending 3) increase public spending to fuel the economy, 4) a combination of 1 and 2 and 3.

 

I am not willing to take responsibility for cutting public services. I'll let the people responsible, i.e. the starve the beast regressives, assume the political cost of cutting services for those who need it most.

 

the pension funding issue can wait when it doesn't amount to disaster capitalism to destroy the public good.

Edited December 28, 2010 by j_b

[Jim]

Thanks again for the arm waving response to a straight-forward question. Over and out.

[JayB]

Thanks again for the arm waving response to a straight-forward question. Over and out.

 

I think everyone has had enough of your right-wing goon tactics....

[JayB]

Got everything I wanted for Christmas.

 

Must suck to watch the libtards have way more fun. Oh well, nobody said sociopathy would be easy.

 

Non-sequitur of the year.

[Off_White]

The voters are tired of the gov't constantly raising taxes instead of working the other end of the equation. When times get tough the avg. person can't just give themselves a pay increase, but that's what the gov't continually does through taxation.

 

Why is it that the gov't needs proportionally more and more (larger percentage) of what the citizens produce? Seems to me there should be some sort of equilibrium level with very little variation over time. Instead we see an upwards trending slope.

 

The only problem is that this is completely false. "Tax Freedom Day" next year arrives on the earliest day in 60 years and overall tax rates, including state & local tax burdens, are the lowest they've been since the mid seventies. The only first world industrialized nation that pays less taxes is Japan. We're a nation of walmart bargain hunting whiners who don't want to pay the cost of the services we use.

 

Over taxed. Yeah, right.

[j_b]

Thanks again for the arm waving response to a straight-forward question. Over and out.

 

I think everyone has had enough of your right-wing goon tactics....

 

how is that darn arithmetics coming?

[JayB]

Thanks again for the arm waving response to a straight-forward question. Over and out.

 

I think everyone has had enough of your right-wing goon tactics....

 

how is that darn arithmetics coming?

 

Ask these guys:

 

"We calculate the present value of local government employee pension liabilities as of June 2009 for approximately 2/3rds of the universe of local government employees. Using local government accounting methods, the total unfunded liability in these areas is $190 billion or over $7,000 per municipal household. When government accounting is corrected by discounting already‐promised benefits at zerocoupon Treasury yields, the total unfunded obligation is $383 billion or over $14,000 per local household. If on a per‐member basis the unfunded liability is the same for the 1/3rd of workers covered by municipal plans not in our sample, the total unfunded liability for all municipal plans in the U.S. is $574 billion. This unfunded promise is above and beyond the roughly $3 trillion (or almost $27,000 per household) unfunded liability of all state‐sponsored pension plans in the U.S. Many U.S. cities are therefore carrying substantial off‐balance‐sheet debt in the form of unfunded pension obligations. We also identify 6 major municipalities whose current pension assets would only be sufficient to pay already‐promised benefits through 2020, and 20 whose current pension assets would only be sufficient to pay already‐promised benefits through 2025."

 

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rauh/research/NMRLocal20101011.pdf

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The only problem is that this is completely false. "Tax Freedom Day" next year arrives on the earliest day in 60 years and overall tax rates, including state & local tax burdens, are the lowest they've been since the mid seventies.

 

Source?

 

BTW, if you think your taxes are too low, nothing is stopping you from voluntarily cutting a check to Washington DC or Olympia.

[j_b]

how is that darn arithmetics coming?

 

Ask these guys:

 

"We calculate the present value of local government employee pension liabilities as of June 2009 for approximately 2/3rds of the universe of local government employees. Using local government accounting methods, the total unfunded liability in these areas is $190 billion or over $7,000 per municipal household. When government accounting is corrected by discounting already‐promised benefits at zerocoupon Treasury yields, the total unfunded obligation is $383 billion or over $14,000 per local household. If on a per‐member basis the unfunded liability is the same for the 1/3rd of workers covered by municipal plans not in our sample, the total unfunded liability for all municipal plans in the U.S. is $574 billion. This unfunded promise is above and beyond the roughly $3 trillion (or almost $27,000 per household) unfunded liability of all state‐sponsored pension plans in the U.S. Many U.S. cities are therefore carrying substantial off‐balance‐sheet debt in the form of unfunded pension obligations. We also identify 6 major municipalities whose current pension assets would only be sufficient to pay already‐promised benefits through 2020, and 20 whose current pension assets would only be sufficient to pay already‐promised benefits through 2025."

 

In other words, you didn't cite the part where they'd substantiate your claim that public employee pensions and wages are the cause of state budget shortfall. Right, they didn't say that. More bait and switch from you.

[j_b]

better benefit packages in the public sector was explicitly understood to be a trade off for lower wages. Funny how regressives forgot that part, where public employees on average earned less than private sector employees but got better benefits and better job security. Of course, now that they forced private sector employees to compete with sweat shops from the land of the bottom cost so their effective wages haven't increased in 30 years, they claim that public employees earn too much. freaking hypocrites.

 

State and local public employees undercompensated, EPI study finds

 

State and local public employees are undercompensated, according to a new Economic Policy Institute analysis. The report, 'Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee: The Evidence' by Labor and Employment Relations Professor Jeffrey Keefe of Rutgers University, finds that, on average, state and local government workers are compensated 3.75% less than workers in the private sector.

 

The study analyzes workers with similar human capital. It controls for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity and disability and finds that, compared to workers in the private sector, state government employees are undercompensated by 7.55% and local government employees are undercompensated by 1.84%. The study also finds that the benefits that state and local government workers receive do not offset the lower wages they are paid.

 

The public/private earnings differential is greatest for doctors, lawyers and professional employees, the study finds. High school-educated public workers, on the other hand, are more highly compensated than private sector employees, because the public sector sets a floor on compensation. The earnings floor has collapsed in the private sector.

 

The Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and the DC-based Center for Economic Policy Research are also releasing a study today, which echoes the national findings of Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee at a regional level. PERI’s report, The Wage Penalty for State and Local Government Employees in New England finds a “wage penalty” for state and local government workers in New England of almost 3%.

http://epi.3cdn.net/5ac7364828b94bd6f3_8km6bxwby.pdf

[prole]

The only first world industrialized nation that pays less taxes is Japan.

 

Lost decade, here we come!

 

Can U.S. see its future in long-stagnant Japan?

 

TOKYO — With some U.S. economists now predicting years of slow growth, stagnant salaries and even deflation, Americans may furrow their brows and wonder just what that means for them.

 

The answer may lie in the experiences of a 45-year-old systems engineer named Hiroshi K., his wife and two children. After more than 10 years of living it, they know all about stagnation and deflation — the good and the bad.

 

The 30-year mortgage on their house in a Tokyo suburb now carries an interest rate of just 2.5 percent. Recently, when the family bought a 46-inch high-definition television set, they got one-third off the $1,450 sticker price. Hiroshi’s wife gets her hair done for $25, less than half the cost 10 years ago.

 

That’s the good news. The not-so-good news is that the family waited months for prices on the TV to drop; much of the price break came from government subsidies and retailer incentives.

 

Also, Hiroshi has not seen a significant pay raise in a decade, so he’s not spending more either. And his 1,000-square-foot home is worth about the same as when he bought it seven years ago.

 

If Hiroshi’s story sounds familiar to Americans, it’s because the United States — caught in the economic doldrums after the worst recession in more than a generation — is beginning to display many of the characteristics of Japan’s so-called Lost Decade.

 

That’s the period when a booming economy that many expected to dominate the world instead ground to a halt, then slipped into a deflationary spiral that continues today.

 

Hiroshi — who asked that his last name not be used out of concern for how his employer might react — spoke about deep-seated worries that many Americans could relate to: job security, retirement, his children’s future.

 

“Because of the uncertain economy, I can’t really plan our future life,” he said. He has changed jobs five times since graduating from technical college, something unthinkable for his parents’ generation. “They never had that kind of worry.”

 

Widespread layoffs and lower-paying jobs are nothing new in the United States. In recessions, U.S. companies have always cut back. But U.S. downturns also typically haven’t lasted long, and they’ve been followed by extended boom times and bursts of hiring.

 

What’s different now is that the U.S., after the big recession, could be settling into a long period of sluggish growth with little prospect for a quick fix.

 

Slow growth and high unemployment tend to depress consumer prices as well as home values in Japan and the United States. But counterintuitive as it may seem, falling prices tend to discourage spending, not stimulate it. People hesitate to make big purchases for things they think will soon be worth less, especially homes.

 

Also, Americans are mired in debt, and the stubbornly high unemployment rates have made people feel insecure even if they still have jobs.

 

Even though the Federal Reserve is holding interest rates unusually low to stimulate economic activity, it’s swimming against the current because businesses are reluctant to borrow money and expand, questioning whether hard-pressed consumers will buy more.

 

Many analysts, looking for a bright side, point out that the United States has a much more dynamic economy than Japan — with greater labor mobility and inherently more entrepreneurial energy. America’s working-age population is not shrinking, as Japan’s is. And perhaps most important of all, American officials have studied the policy missteps of the Japanese.

 

Even so, more than a few prominent economists, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, see the U.S. possibly sliding down a similarly dark path in which prices and wages fall and the economy stagnates. In some ways, the situation may turn out to be worse for Americans than it has been for the Japanese.

 

Japan’s social norms and institutions provide more support for workers as well as homeowners and bank clients in trouble.

 

“In a few years, we may envy Japan,” said R. Taggart Murphy, professor of global management at Tsukuba University in Tokyo.

 

By world standards, Japan remains fairly comfortable.

 

Average household income is about $62,000 — slightly less than in the U.S. — based on the latest government data.

 

Japan’s unemployment rate has been running 4 percent to 5 percent, about double the rate in the go-go 1980s, but still just half of the current U.S. rate of 9.6 percent.

 

The Lost Decade has taken an emotional toll as well. The number of Japanese suffering from depression, for example, has doubled in the last decade, with men in their 30s and 40s showing the highest rate, according to Japan’s Welfare Ministry.

 

Yuki Honda, a professor at Tokyo University who has researched Japan’s young adults, attributes a good part of this problem to the difficulty that workers — even graduates of top universities — have getting good permanent jobs.

 

“The Lost Decade made young people timid and afraid of what to do; it’s made them even more risk-averse,” Honda said.

 

Other Japanese are almost fatalistic about the future, believing that things will never get better.

 

Daigo Sato, 32, is too young to have memories of the earlier era when people were sprinkling gold flecks on sushi and thought nothing of spending thousands of dollars for the latest Gucci handbag.

 

“The economy has been the same ever since I graduated. I don’t feel it’s bad or worse, it’s just the same,” said the Osaka native, a college graduate who majored in history and has been working ever since as a salesman for a sake company.

 

Previously, he said, the stock market was alive. Now, “I have my money in stocks, and they haven’t done anything in 10 years.”

 

Hiroshi, the systems engineer, is old enough to remember the heady days when people talked about Japan as No. 1. Now, he said, never mind the U.S., Japan can’t keep up with China and South Korea.

 

He hopes he can retire from his current company but has no illusions that his employer will keep him if sales fall. He isn’t counting on his $300,000 home to appreciate. Nor does he expect Japan’s pension to support him.

 

So Hiroshi and his wife skimp to sock away 10 percent of his salary. Like many others, Hiroshi’s wife recently took a part-time job.

 

This year, for the first time in several, Hiroshi said he got a small raise. How small?

 

Enough for one extra beer a week — the special $3 kind.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

GOOD THING HE GOT THAT 1/3 OFF ON THAT CRITICAL PIECE OF FURNITURE - A 46 INCH HDTV!!!!

 

 

[prole]

GOOD THING HE GOT THAT 1/3 OFF ON THAT CRITICAL PIECE OF FURNITURE - A 46 INCH HDTV!!!!

 

Those critical pieces of furniture are the only thing that's holding the American social fabric together right now.

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Sx5NhIElk&has_verified=1

[j_b]

except that most debt is contracted over necessary expenses not HDTVs or other consumer items.