U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

conservativeguy · Dec 2, 2011

Gill said:
The list of things he doesn't understand is too lengthy for this thread.

I agree, the list is quite long.

Donc · Dec 2, 2011

Conservative said:
So tell me how much tax that same person actually pay under the Bush tax cuts?

Currently with Bush tax cuts:

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

Tax @ 10% = $884

Make Work credit is $400

tax liability is PAY $484

I bolded the tax liability line for you.:roll:

apdst · Dec 2, 2011

pbrauer said:
They do pay taxes, it depends upon what deductions are claimed and what their taxable income is. Here is the current table:

2011
Married Filing Jointly Married Filing Separately Single Head of Household
Marginal Tax Brackets Marginal Tax Brackets Marginal Tax Brackets Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over Tax Rate Over But Not Over Tax Rate Over But Not Over Tax Rate Over But Not Over
10.0% $0 $17,000 10.0% $0 $8,500 10.0% $0 $8,500 10.0% $0 $12,150
15.0% $17,000 $69,000 15.0% $8,500 $34,500 15.0% $8,500 $34,500 15.0% $12,150 $46,250
25.0% $69,000 $139,350 25.0% $34,500 $69,675 25.0% $34,500 $83,600 25.0% $46,250 $119,400
28.0% $139,350 $212,300 28.0% $69,675 $106,150 28.0% $83,600 $174,400 28.0% $119,400 $193,350
33.0% $212,300 $379,150 33.0% $106,150 $189,575 33.0% $174,400 $379,150 33.0% $193,350 $379,150
35.0% $379,150 - 35.0% $189,575 - 35.0% $379,150 - 35.0% $379,150 -
Note: Last law to change rates was the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Another one that's never heard of the Earned Income Credit. And, you want to try and insult my intelligence?

Earned income tax credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

apdst · Dec 2, 2011

treedancer said:
Currently with Bush tax cuts:

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Taxable income of $8,650 in 2010 .

Tax @ 10% = $884

Make Work credit is $400

tax liability is PAY $484

I bolded the tax liability line for you.:roll:

Is that the person's gross, or net income? Does that person have any dependents? Any deductions and/or credits?

Donc · Dec 2, 2011

apdst said:
Is that the person's gross, or net income? Does that person have any dependents? Any deductions and/or credits?

Here is a CP from the post you quoted for ya.

A single person earning $18,000 per year.

Rhapsody1447 · Dec 2, 2011

Goldenboy219 said:
Page 3 of the article has a chart that gives an efficiency breakdown of various types of fiscal policy stemming from tax cuts to transfer payments. The article was an address to congress calling for economic stimulus as early as July 2008.

To state that Keynesian stimulus "borrows demand from the future" is inaccurate. The point of enacting such a policy is to create demand, but this does not necessarily require future demand to be repaid. When the government conducts any sort of fiscal stimulus, public saving (government spending minus tax revenue) should go to the negative if it is not already there. This can be achieved on three possible fronts; 1.) decreasing taxes 2.) increasing government expenditures 3.) a mixture of both. Any type of deficit spending, whether it is stimulative or not, requires tax increases in the future to finance said expenditure. Tax revenue is also a component in private saving (income minus (consumption plus taxation)), so it is intuitive that increasing taxes in the future will diminish business investment, but not necessarily future demand.

For an actual article that supports the stimulus which is also quantitative in nature, see this.

I went back and double checked the table. Sorry, but as for your second link I don't have the energy to read through it all right now. Such is the life in the financial industry and it's after work on a Friday.

I don't see your argument of why "borrowing demand from the future is inaccurate". From my limited understanding of Keynesian economics I get this:

" The mainstream economics position is that deficit spending is desirable and necessary as part of countercyclical fiscal policy, but that there should not be a structural deficit: in an economic slump, government should run deficits, to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate demand, but should run corresponding surpluses in boom times so that there is no net deficit over an economic cycle – a cyclical deficit only. This is derived from Keynesian economics, and has been the mainstream economics view (in the Anglo-Saxon world especially) since Keynesian economics was developed and largely accepted in the Great Depression in the 1930s."

Deficit spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now the core point of this position is countercyclical fiscal policy. Note that the position calls for running surpluses in boom times in order to realize a zero net deficit. In order to realize these surpluses one doesn't necessarily have to raise taxes. The point of the stimulative spending in the first place is that future incomes are greater and thus more revenue is collected. Also, if the government decided to cut spending during boom times by an amount equal to the spending in recessionary times than they could also realize a surplus.

Whether you raise taxes, cut spending, or collect higher revenues at the same tax rates, you are still using demand to pay for past demand. The higher the deficit spending in the recession, the more the government has to spend paying down debts in the boom time. This spending is essentially borrowed in the recession from potential spending in the future. Now if you look at our current fiscal situation the quote above would make you laugh. Since deficit spending started we have never run a surplus despite experiencing huge economic booms. I don't think this is a system Keynes would have ever approved of.

I have asked this question many times on this board and have yet to receive a response. If you raise taxes but fail to increase revenues, who stands to benefit? Increased tax rates affect on government revenue are about as predictable as reduced tax rates on GDP. If you raise taxes and the government doesn't realize projected revenues all you are doing is suppressing GDP growth. Please read my post on this thread to get a better understanding of my position that tax increases (and the difficulty of predicitng their effect) do not automatically equal increased revenue.

As for the table, you should note that the numbers are a prediction of the one-year change in GDP as a result of the tax cuts and spending. There is no arguing that spending is a better short term solution as it directly increases demand by putting money in the consumers hand tomorrow. Realization of tax cuts in GDP takes longer as the money that is kept in the market isn't put into the pockets of consumers as quickly and requires time for it to make it's back into the system. Now where is the money coming from? From deficit government spending it comes from debt. From tax cuts it comes from a higher percent of the private sector's share of GDP. On a side note, the reason why I am always in support of lower taxes and lower spending as opposed to higher taxes and higher spending is because the former increase in GDP comes from the result of an individual's productivity. They are allowed to keep a higher portion of what is rightfully theirs. The latter can only come from two places. A higher portion of the government's share of an individuals earnings (higher taxes) or borrowing money from investors/inflation of the money supply (deficit spending). If the government chooses to borrow the money, higher portions of future GDP must be collected in order to repay the loan. Now the rationalization is that by spending today the government is able to create more future demand than it would need to collect to repay the loans. This is sometimes true if businesses are willing to pick up where the government left off and invest capital in the same productivie activity that the government spurred. However, I find the recent stimulus to be an example of the failure to do so. The unemployment extensions and food stamp increases have provided no additional productivity and have only served to temporarily inflate GDP today (through consumer spending of government dollars) at the expense of future spending/revenue that must be used to repay the loans that are incurred.

Now, personally, on a moral level, I believe that the reduction in a person's income from the government is almost always preferable to the reduction in a person's income from their own productivity. Of course exceptions have to be made for certain people who lack the productive abilities to survive on their own as we are much too civilized to base fiscal policy on social darwinism. Charities do a great deal in addressing this issue but I realize there is a need for the government to make up the balance. This is the basis for why I am predisposed to tax cuts over government spending.

Rhapsody1447 · Dec 2, 2011

Sorry, but as for your second link I don't have the energy to read through it all right now. Such is the life in the financial industry and it's after work on a Friday.

I have bookmarked it and will be reading it over the weekend or Monday morning at the office.

apdst · Dec 2, 2011

treedancer said:
Here is a CP from the post you quoted for ya.

Oh! Total earnings. Ok, that clears it up. So, after deductions, the tax liability s going to be much lower. By then, the Earned Income Credit will kick in and this person will owe, um, nothing!

Higgins86 · Dec 2, 2011

so the unemployment rate drops and your all mad? Americans are an odd breed..

Dittohead not! · Dec 2, 2011

Higgins86 said:
so the unemployment rate drops and your all mad? Americans are an odd breed..

Well, if unemployment really is down, and if it continues to drop, then we're likely to have four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

That's the last thing that the Republican party wants to see happen.

But, some of us are questioning whether unemployment is, in fact, down, or whether other factors are making it look as if it is.

dirtpoorchris · Dec 2, 2011

I wonder how many where homeless people sent to guantanamo while OWS is active. I bet some mayors would be tempted to use the OWS movement timing to also clear the streets of homeless and say their part of the OWS group.

Higgins86 · Dec 2, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Well, if unemployment really is down, and if it continues to drop, then we're likely to have four more years of a Democrat in the White House.

That's the last thing that the Republican party wants to see happen.

But, some of us are questioning whether unemployment is, in fact, down, or whether other factors are making it look as if it is.

meh with all the crappy financial news we have been having im just going to play dumb and say that unemployment is dropping and soon we will all be having picnics and double rainbows.

Dittohead not! · Dec 2, 2011

Higgins86 said:
meh with all the crappy financial news we have been having im just going to play dumb and say that unemployment is dropping and soon we will all be having picnics and double rainbows.

Hold that thought, at least until after Christmas. Maybe it's true after all.

Can we have unicorns frolicking under the double rainbows?

Higgins86 · Dec 2, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
Hold that thought, at least until after Christmas. Maybe it's true after all.

Can we have unicorns frolicking under the double rainbows?

we can have whatever you want champ

Donc · Dec 2, 2011

apdst said:
Oh! Total earnings. Ok, that clears it up. So, after deductions, the tax liability s going to be much lower. By then, the Earned Income Credit will kick in and this person will owe, um, nothing!

Based on the information you provided, you are not eligible to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit because...

The total of your earned income amount must be less than $13,460 for 2010
The total of your adjusted gross income amount must be less than $13,460 for 2010:2wave:

Rhapsody1447 · Dec 2, 2011

I wanted to add that fellow Conservatives should NOT be hoping for higher unemployment numbers! That's ridiculous. I agree these numbers are not representative of the economy, but we should all be hoping that more people are working! I agree with more realistic expectations of lower future growth but I would never hope for it. Growth benefits everyone despite political party. We may not be going anywhere soon but we should never hope the economy does poorly just to help our personal political agendas.

Conservative · Dec 2, 2011

Rhapsody1447 said:
I wanted to add that fellow Conservatives should NOT be hoping for higher unemployment numbers! That's ridiculous. I agree these numbers are not representative of the economy, but we should all be hoping that more people are working! I agree with more realistic expectations of lower future growth but I would never hope for it. Growth benefits everyone despite political party. We may not be going anywhere soon but we should never hope the economy does poorly just to help our personal political agendas.

Don't disagree with you as I hope for strong economic growth and rising employment including a rising labor market. I just don't see anything this Administration is doing to promote strong economic growth and private sector job creation. Obama is going to have to have a massive change in order to generate private sector job growth and here is an example of the problem he faces. Why does anyone support Obama? This is an outrage

Subject: Kiss GE Goodbye.

If only our media would report on news like this!!! Unbelievable!

General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.

If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does.

j-mac · Dec 2, 2011

Rhapsody1447 said:
I wanted to add that fellow Conservatives should NOT be hoping for higher unemployment numbers! That's ridiculous. I agree these numbers are not representative of the economy, but we should all be hoping that more people are working! I agree with more realistic expectations of lower future growth but I would never hope for it. Growth benefits everyone despite political party. We may not be going anywhere soon but we should never hope the economy does poorly just to help our personal political agendas.

I don't think that anyone is hoping for high UE numbers. That helps no one....When my wife and I moved from MD to SC it was because her job after 20 years as a graphic designer with Chicago Tribune owned subsidiary was eliminated, and she was bought out. She has not worked in her field since. That is three years. Now, her prospects are that she will never work in her field again. At 45, with that much experience she is "over qualified" for anything close. So they move on to younger, cheaper designers.

Her story is not special in this mess. But I tell ya, it is tough.

j-mac

j-mac · Dec 2, 2011

(Reuters) - New claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week, popping above 400,000 for the first time in just over a month

Instant view: Jobless claims rise above 400,000 | Reuters

Oh yeah...It's getting so much better....

j-mac

pbrauer · Dec 2, 2011

Conservative said:
Don't disagree with you as I hope for strong economic growth and rising employment including a rising labor market. I just don't see anything this Administration is doing to promote strong economic growth and private sector job creation. Obama is going to have to have a massive change in order to generate private sector job growth and here is an example of the problem he faces. Why does anyone support Obama? This is an outrage

Subject: Kiss GE Goodbye.

If only our media would report on news like this!!! Unbelievable!

General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.

If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does.

In your opinion, would a President Romney/Gingrich be for or against this?

Conservative · Dec 2, 2011

j-mac said:
Oh yeah...It's getting so much better....

j-mac

Then isn't this wonderful?

Subject: Kiss GE Goodbye.
If only our media would report on news like this!!! Unbelievable!

General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.

If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does.

Conservative · Dec 2, 2011

pbrauer said:
In your opinion, would a President Romney/Gingrich be for or against this?

In my opinion, Romney wouldn't be for that and would provide the incentives necessary to keep those jobs here. You don't appoint Immelt as head of a Job's commission and then have him do this to you and the country.

apdst · Dec 2, 2011

treedancer said:
Based on the information you provided, you are not eligible to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit because...

The total of your earned income amount must be less than $13,460 for 2010
The total of your adjusted gross income amount must be less than $13,460 for 2010:2wave:

The EIC goes by the net income. You posted the gross income. If thise person can come with 5 g's worth of deductions, he can qualify for the EIC.

:2wave:

MrMindSpeaker · Dec 3, 2011

Conservative said:
Then isn't this wonderful?

Subject: Kiss GE Goodbye.
If only our media would report on news like this!!! Unbelievable!

General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old X-ray division from Waukesha , Wis. , to Beijing . In addition to moving the headquarters, the company will invest $2 billion in China and train more than 65 engineers and create six research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year. but paid no taxes-the same company that employs more people overseas than it does in the united States .
So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is supposed to help create jobs. I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs.

If this doesn't show you the total lack of leadership of this President, I don't know what does.

holy ****! how could this not be blasted all over the news?

people would be outraged!

AdamT · Dec 3, 2011

MrMindSpeaker said:
holy ****! how could this not be blasted all over the news?

people would be outraged!

It was blasted all over the news ... about three months ago.

Outrageous? Not at all. China is where GE's imaging business is expanding. Makes perfect sense for them to move some production there.

Would Romney do anything about it? I'm sure he would encourage it, given the fact that he made millions offshoring American jobs.

U.S. Jobless Rate Unexpectedly Declines to 8.6%

conservativeguy

Well-known member

Donc

apdst

apdst

Donc

Rhapsody1447

Skeptical Optimist

Rhapsody1447

Skeptical Optimist

apdst

Higgins86

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos

Higgins86

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Higgins86

Donc

Rhapsody1447

Skeptical Optimist

Conservative

j-mac

j-mac

pbrauer

Conservative

Conservative

apdst

MrMindSpeaker

Member

AdamT

					2011
	Married Filing Jointly			Married Filing Separately			Single			Head of Household
Marginal	Tax Brackets		Marginal	Tax Brackets		Marginal	Tax Brackets		Marginal	Tax Brackets
Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over	Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over	Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over	Tax Rate	Over	But Not Over
10.0%	$0	$17,000	10.0%	$0	$8,500	10.0%	$0	$8,500	10.0%	$0	$12,150
15.0%	$17,000	$69,000	15.0%	$8,500	$34,500	15.0%	$8,500	$34,500	15.0%	$12,150	$46,250
25.0%	$69,000	$139,350	25.0%	$34,500	$69,675	25.0%	$34,500	$83,600	25.0%	$46,250	$119,400
28.0%	$139,350	$212,300	28.0%	$69,675	$106,150	28.0%	$83,600	$174,400	28.0%	$119,400	$193,350
33.0%	$212,300	$379,150	33.0%	$106,150	$189,575	33.0%	$174,400	$379,150	33.0%	$193,350	$379,150
35.0%	$379,150	-	35.0%	$189,575	-	35.0%	$379,150	-	35.0%	$379,150	-
Note: Last law to change rates was the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.