Financial News

[pettie4sox]

The wealth is obviously there, it's a matter of how our economic systems end up distributing it. We've already got worse income and wealth inequality than the peak of the Gilded Age.

 

Socialist! /g

[ptatc]

If our only two options are lot's of people employed, but still poor or mass unemployment. Maybe we live in a broken system.

No doubt. That's why some changes need to be made. i think everyone agrees with that. It's just how to go about it.

[Soxbadger]

Here is some information from the Bureau of labor and statistics.

 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9

percent in November. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult women (3.7

percent), Whites (3.6 percent), Blacks (7.3 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics

(4.7 percent) showed little change.

 

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as

involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but

was down by 858,000 over the year. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time

employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they

were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

 

still seems to me that there are far too many full time unemployed workers. The "involuntary part-time" workers especially. Many companies are now considering 30 per week "full time" to cut back on wages and benefits for workers, especially in retail. I don't think you can force companies to change the policies but if there were a shortage of workers the companies would become the "buyers" not "sellers" and may get them to change.

 

Many economists thought it was impossible to get unemployment this low. 4% unemployment is really low. Right now there are actually more low paying jobs than workers.

 

The real question is, would higher wages cause employers to cut jobs and therefore increase unemployment. The answer is likely yes.

 

If anything corporations should be having to pay for more benefits for employees, especially if those corporations are making massive profits. Things like "health insurance" should be obvious because sick workers cost time and money, so it makes no sense not to keep your workers healthy.

[Jenksismyhero]

Honest question - how many people here complaining about the tax cuts removing wealth from the lower class pay more in taxes than they actually need to?

[ptatc]

The wealth is obviously there, it's a matter of how our economic systems end up distributing it. We've already got worse income and wealth inequality than the peak of the Gilded Age.

Agreed. Although I would use the term inequity not inequality. Inequality to me means everyone deserves an equal share. Whereas inequity to me means everyone deserves the same opportunity for the share.

[Soxbadger]

Honest question - how many people here complaining about the tax cuts removing wealth from the lower class pay more in taxes than they actually need to?

 

Do you mean:

 

1) Pay taxes above what my liability should be?

 

or

 

2) Pay an effective tax rate that is higher than people making far more than me?

[StrangeSox]

Here is some information from the Bureau of labor and statistics.

 

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers increased to 15.9

percent in November. The jobless rates for adult men (3.7 percent), adult women (3.7

percent), Whites (3.6 percent), Blacks (7.3 percent), Asians (3.0 percent), and Hispanics

(4.7 percent) showed little change.

 

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as

involuntary part-time workers), at 4.8 million, was essentially unchanged in November but

was down by 858,000 over the year. These individuals, who would have preferred full-time

employment, were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they

were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)

 

still seems to me that there are far too many full time unemployed workers. The "involuntary part-time" workers especially. Many companies are now considering 30 per week "full time" to cut back on wages and benefits for workers, especially in retail. I don't think you can force companies to change the policies but if there were a shortage of workers the companies would become the "buyers" not "sellers" and may get them to change.

 

This website has a graph showing "official" U-3 unemployment as well as U-6 unemployment, which includes underemployed and discouraged workers.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

 

While we're a little bit above the low point of 7% U-6 of the late 90's boom economy, we're still at only 8% U-6 which is pretty low. Real wages have climbed somewhat but not nearly at the pace they did since 1970, when productivity and wage gains were essentially 1:1.

 

http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

 

You're right that there are a lot of factors that go into wages and jobs, but we don't really see a lot of evidence that full employment produces enough upward pressure on wages to get them up to a minimum livable wage for everyone.

[StrangeSox]

Honest question - how many people here complaining about the tax cuts removing wealth from the lower class pay more in taxes than they actually need to?

 

An arbitrary number of individuals overpaying by an arbitrary amount is irrelevant to construction of functional and coherent fiscal and social policy.

Edited December 21, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Do you mean:

 

1) Pay taxes above what my liability should be?

 

or

 

2) Pay an effective tax rate that is higher than people making far more than me?

 

Government says you need to pay X. But you pay X and then something additional.

[ptatc]

Many economists thought it was impossible to get unemployment this low. 4% unemployment is really low. Right now there are actually more low paying jobs than workers.

 

The real question is, would higher wages cause employers to cut jobs and therefore increase unemployment. The answer is likely yes.

 

If anything corporations should be having to pay for more benefits for employees, especially if those corporations are making massive profits. Things like "health insurance" should be obvious because sick workers cost time and money, so it makes no sense not to keep your workers healthy.

this is true. But the stats are a little misleading with the number of "forced part-time" employment. They aren't considered unemployed but don't make enough money to not have 2 jobs.

 

That is a large number. These are the many of the people needed 2 jobs to make ends meet. If they had a full time job with full time pay and benefits, it may change as well

[Jenksismyhero]

An arbitrary number of individuals overpaying by an arbitrary amount is irrelevant to construction of functional and coherent fiscal and social policy.

 

I agree to an extent. By my problem is the double standard here - people complaining about how this tax cut screws the poor while they do nothing. If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it. Take the tax cut you're going to get and give it back to the government. Nothing is stopping you.

Edited December 21, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[StrangeSox]

I agree to an extent. By my problem is the double standard here - people complaining about how this tax rate screws the poor while they do nothing. If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it. Take the tax cut you're going to get and give it back to the government. Nothing is stopping you.

 

That doesn't do anything to help the poor, though. There's no double standard.

[ptatc]

This website has a graph showing "official" U-3 unemployment as well as U-6 unemployment, which includes underemployed and discouraged workers.

http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate

 

While we're a little bit above the low point of 7% U-6 of the late 90's boom economy, we're still at only 8% U-6 which is pretty low. Real wages have climbed somewhat but not nearly at the pace they did since 1970, when productivity and wage gains were essentially 1:1.

 

http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

 

You're right that there are a lot of factors that go into wages and jobs, but we don't really see a lot of evidence that full employment produces enough upward pressure on wages to get them up to a minimum livable wage for everyone.

but would full time employment on a larger scale make those who are working the full time jobs be able to have a more livable wage. Of course it won't apply to everyone. nothing applies to everyone.

[Soxbadger]

this is true. But the stats are a little misleading with the number of "forced part-time" employment. They aren't considered unemployed but don't make enough money to not have 2 jobs.

 

That is a large number. These are the many of the people needed 2 jobs to make ends meet. If they had a full time job with full time pay and benefits, it may change as well

 

But that problem lies in the fact that there is no incentive to hire full time employees or give benefits. If for example the tax cut on corporations were tied to something like "Only corporations that have X% of full time employees and provide full benefits" then you would get a meaningful change.

 

Weekly I get questions on how can my company avoid hiring people full time, giving out benefits, calling employees/ICs etc, all to try and make a little bit more profit for people who are already making 10-100x more per year than the employee they are trying to cut benefits to.

[StrangeSox]

We have unemployment and underemployment levels near what economists think are the absolute minimum in a thriving economy and there are still a lot of jobs out there that don't pay living wages.

[Jenksismyhero]

That doesn't do anything to help the poor, though. There's no double standard.

 

The complaint rings a little hollow if you're going to take the benefit of the tax cut and not "give back" or at least continue to pay what you would have paid but for the tax cuts.

[ptatc]

But that problem lies in the fact that there is no incentive to hire full time employees or give benefits. If for example the tax cut on corporations were tied to something like "Only corporations that have X% of full time employees and provide full benefits" then you would get a meaningful change.

 

Weekly I get questions on how can my company avoid hiring people full time, giving out benefits, calling employees/ICs etc, all to try and make a little bit more profit for people who are already making 10-100x more per year than the employee they are trying to cut benefits to.

this what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. How can this be done. i don't know the answer. I'm not a financial person by any stretch of the imagination. I'm in the medical field. i'm truly looking for opinions.

[bmags]

I agree to an extent. By my problem is the double standard here - people complaining about how this tax cut screws the poor while they do nothing. If you want to pay more in taxes, go for it. Take the tax cut you're going to get and give it back to the government. Nothing is stopping you.

 

What do you mean they do nothing? One thing they are doing is trying to change the political structure to help the poor instead of undermine it.

 

Politics is doing something. You know what doesn't do anything? Fishing for hypocrisy on a message board.

 

Hmm...yes this bill is bad, but have you ever passed a homeless person on the street without giving money? Well then you can't complain, you are a hypocrite!

[StrangeSox]

The complaint rings a little hollow if you're going to take the benefit of the tax cut and not "give back" or at least continue to pay what you would have paid but for the tax cuts.

 

Me voluntarily paying more in taxes has zero impact on federal policy or anyone who has less than me.

 

Even if I may personally immediately benefit from the tax plan (don't know for sure, probably close to a wash either way), I can still oppose it and think it's bad public policy. How does me paying a little less in income tax invalidate criticisms about cutting estate taxes or corporate taxes or the top tax bracket? Or that these cuts will have large negative effects on public spending for programs I think are important?

 

This will have large structural changes to our economy and to wealth distribution in this country. Even if we're talking about Warren Buffet levels of income and paying a little more, it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

What do you mean they do nothing? One thing they are doing is trying to change the political structure to help the poor instead of undermine it.

 

Politics is doing something. You know what doesn't do anything? Fishing for hypocrisy on a message board.

 

Hmm...yes this bill is bad, but have you ever passed a homeless person on the street without giving money? Well then you can't complain, you are a hypocrite!

 

If you take the benefit of the tax cut just like the wealthy it is absolutely a double standard to b**** about the fact that the wealthy are being helped. No, you're not getting the same degree of a benefit, but you are getting one relative to your income.

[bmags]

Perhaps this could lead to more donations to charity, but they didn't structure the bill to even encourage that.

[Soxbadger]

this what I'm trying to wrap my mind around. How can this be done. i don't know the answer. I'm not a financial person by any stretch of the imagination. I'm in the medical field. i'm truly looking for opinions.

 

The last part of my post gave an idea. You would have to give incentives. Instead of just giving a tax break to corps, you could have given a tax break to corps who "pay for their employees health care", who have full time employment rates over (insert X%), who keep X% of their production or workers in the US.

 

The problem is that this requires the goal to be helping out the lower/middle class. If that is the actual goal, its not really hard to accomplish. But that wasnt the goal, the goal was to make it so the ultra rich could become even wealthier and the regular people would be happy with a tax cut that will be less than what most of their health insurance premiums will increase due to the destabilization of the health care market this year.

 

There is enough money to go around, but not everyone really believes that all American's deserve a minimum standard of living.

[StrangeSox]

If you take the benefit of the tax cut just like the wealthy it is absolutely a double standard to b**** about the fact that the wealthy are being helped. No, you're not getting the same degree of a benefit, but you are getting one relative to your income.

 

Less of one, and substantially so in many cases, for whatever it's worth.

 

I want different tax policy. I live in a world where this is the current tax policy. An individual voluntarily paying more is completely meaningless, and following the current rules doesn't make one a hypocrite. I'd gladly give up whatever tiny benefit I may see from this tax plan for something different, but that's not an actual choice I have.

 

[bmags]

If you take the benefit of the tax cut just like the wealthy it is absolutely a double standard to b**** about the fact that the wealthy are being helped. No, you're not getting the same degree of a benefit, but you are getting one relative to your income.

 

Oh, so if I am mayor of soxtalk and I take out a 1 billion dollar loan and I give 900 million to myself and the other 99.95 million to my friend brett05 for always supporting me, but then give you and all other posters $1000 and know that the rising debt payments that will raise costs and be inequitably distributed, you can't say this is bad policy because I gave you $1000?

 

I can think something is bad even if it benefits me. I think the zoning policy around me is bad, but it certainly contributes to inflating the equity i have in my house. Should I take out a home equity loan and give it to a family to move there? Maybe that would be a good idea. I could also just try and cobble together a working majority to change how zoning policy is done so it is more fairly distributed.

 

[Balta1701]

Many economists thought it was impossible to get unemployment this low. 4% unemployment is really low. Right now there are actually more low paying jobs than workers.

Um, who are these economists and why are people still listening to them? Unemployment was lower than this in 1998 and there is still a large pool of people who left the labor force after 2008 and haven't yet been drawn back.