Comments on: Some observations about our country’s economic situation.

By: Achance

Achance — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:12:52 +0000

because it is so heavily weighted towards shelter costs. Anyone whose retirement, SS, wages, or rent or other cost adjustments are predicated on CPI adjustments is going to get hosed. We went through this after the oil price crash in the mid-eighties and the relative standard of living has never recovered. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most common cost of living idicator, the Consumer Price Index – Urban Wage Earners (CPI-U) is so heavily weighted for shelter costs, when you have a collapsing housing market, it will show a static or deflating economy when the prices real people are paying for real lives are going up dramatically.

CPI-U is a pretty arbitrary figure anyway; the only way it would represent YOUR cost of living is if you bought everything in the market basket and moved every month thus causing your rent/mortgage to reflect that month’s avg. cost. So, if you’re a real person paying your real mortgage, it is probably fixed without regard to what the economy is doing at that instant when the survey is done. Your payment doesn’t go down if the market collapes or go up during bubbles, yet the CPI-U will move dramatically in both cases. That’s a real boon if you get CPI wage adjustments and yet are avoiding the cost increases. Since wages are almost never adjusted downwards in direct response to CPI, you don’t get cut that way either, though you may lose your job altogether in a downturn. Long ago, general wage reductions was the most common employer tool in a downturn so they could keep a trained workforce yet meet the current economy. Unions pretty much ended that and layoff is usually the only tool.

In any event, the BLS and the BHO Administration will be able to point to the CPI-U and say that inflation is “under control,” while real people’s costs are skyrocketing and they don’t have any way to justify increasing their wages.

By: MarvinH

MarvinH — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:58:46 +0000

the $75K lie.

Higher Taxes will hit all taxpayers.
Higher electricity costs will generate inflation across the board, in addition to draining your home’s budget faster.

Why do people vote against productivity?
Why do people vote for the party that wants a poor population
vs a party that wants people to get rich?

By: DL80

DL80 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 12:23:32 +0000

Eh, it’s not bad. It’s better than a lot of beers (Coors Light, Bud Light, Natty, PBR, etc.). Doesn’t beat Sam Adams or Smithwick’s, though.

By: rbdwiggins

rbdwiggins — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:46:45 +0000

will go up, but their rate won’t be targeted: Allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, raise gas taxes, implement carbon tax, designate more sin taxes…

By: Cowboy

Cowboy — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:41:36 +0000

There is the carbon tax that will raise the price of nearly everything you buy.

Gas will get taxed on both ends. Aw h*ll the list could go on all night and I am tired.

By: gyorcnacain

gyorcnacain — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:26:13 +0000

…I don’t mind the plastic bottle, you can then store a bunch in the freezer and not worry about them falling out and breaking when you open it. Plus you can mix it with stuff, which dilutes the taste, not so with Natty…

And for the record, since we’re on the subject, if you (you being anyone out there) are reading this and you are a beer drinker and you live somewhere where they sell it go out and try YUENGLING.

By: IJB

IJB — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:12:04 +0000

Obama and the Dems can’t get their math to work even remotely, unless *everyone* who’s currently paying taxes pays more.

It won’t just be people earning more than $250,000, or even people earning more than $100,000 – to make this work, taxes will have to go up on individuals earning as little as, say, $40,000, and couples earning $60,000-70,000.

Taxes will go up, *on everyone*.

California is the template here – they just put a “temporary” surcharge on *every* Californian who pays state taxes, no matter the income level.

Obama & The Dems will make sure that they Feds and the IRS aren’t far behind on this.

After all, “deficits” must be contained so they can properly “invest” in the economy, don’t you see?…

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:11:26 +0000

Although the Banker’s Club bit was a blatant try for sympathy.

A pretty successful one, too. Comes in a plastic bottle, right?

By: barry915barry

barry915barry — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:06:14 +0000

By: gyorcnacain

gyorcnacain — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:02:19 +0000

…can she instead somehow give it to me and write it off as a tax deduction? I mean, I wouldn’t mind having an extra $70k around. Per year. As a college student, I certainly wouldn’t mind a step up from Taco Bell and Big Macs. And Natty light and Banker’s Club.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:00:30 +0000

…it’s that we don’t believe you.

By: barry915barry

barry915barry — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:52:32 +0000

Can you teach me how to do that when I go bass fishing up at the cottage this summer!?!
(BTW, I actually caught a double header on a single lure back in ’04 fishing lunker bass down at Lake Huites in Mexico.) (Sorry to go off topic. It is getting late I guess).

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:46:47 +0000

Remember, folks: Obama supporter. He doesn’t respect your intelligence, doesn’t trust your judgment, and thinks that he has the right to disapprove of your private fiscal policies.

By: Chris_B

Chris_B — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:43:26 +0000

What is my moral problem?

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:41:54 +0000

A moral problem.

Try again.

By: Chris_B

Chris_B — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:36:33 +0000

I think what she’s doing is misguided and based on a poor understanding of the tax code, but that’s certainly her choice.

You’re right. You were not describing it – my apologies my mis-attributing this to you.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:31:46 +0000

Amusingly, admitting it wouldn’t have gotten you banned.

Blam.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:29:57 +0000

But you can confirm for me, too, that you have no problem at all with Dr. Poczatek choosing to lower her income in order to pay less taxes.

Next post.

By: izoneguy

izoneguy — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:28:26 +0000

“The marginal rate >$250,000 is proposed to go from 35% to 39%, which she will pay on $70,000. At the current rate she pays $24,500 on that $70,000 and keeps $45,500. At 39% she will pay $27,300 on that $70,000 and keeps $42,700. So, as I understand it, Dr. Poczatek is willing to give up $42,000 in order to save paying an extra $2,800 in taxes?”

35% is what she pays on $320,000 – The tax rates are not just going up on the amount you would make over $250,000….

So at 35% on $320,000 that is = $112,000 in taxes
At 39% on $320,000 that is = $ 124,800 in taxes

at 35% on $250,000 that is = $ 87,500

So you would make $70,000 less in gross.
BUT you are paying $37,300 less in taxes not $2800 – now you see the problem.

But Obama will dig down so that people making $75,000 or more -will pay more.

By: Chris_B

Chris_B — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:24:32 +0000

Because it doesn’t work the way you’re describing it, and it certainly doesn’t work the way Dr. Poczatek claims it does.

If you go over $250k a year, it is not your entire income that gets taxed at a higher rate, but rather the additional amount.

So, if someone earns $249,999 next year, that person will take home $162,499.35. If the same person earns an additional ten bucks, they will take home $162,506.06.

Can we drop this meme and focus on actual issues, please?