BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have many issues with his plan. Because his plan is 55 pages, I will focus one thing that is puzzling.

(Part of) Paul Ryan's plan:

If I understand this correctly, for those making really big bucks, their tax will be roughly 25% on earnings and zero % on interest, capital gains and dividends.

Let's take the famous billionaire exemplar Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% taxes on $46 M. Using the fact that his top margin was 35% taxable earnings and his capital gains was at 15%, a little bit of algebra shows roughly his taxable earnings was $6.2 M and his capital gains was $39.8 M.

Using Ryan's plan, Buffet's tax would be .25 x $6.2 M + 0 x $ 39.8 M = $1.55 M.
Buffet's percentage tax would then be 1.55/46.0 = 3.4%.

Did I understand Ryan's tax plan correctly?

I agree that any 55 page plan is probably not simple.

And while "double taxation" should be avoided it does seem odd that it results in one person paying only a tiny percent while another pays a large percent.

I think we need clarification on what double taxation is and what income is.

 

[GenSeneca]

It's more like 2%

Source?

If an action that impacts 2% is the best example you have, then you have very little.

That's certainly a strawman.

The gov can't create a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt. - Lag

So how does that work... We hire all the unemployed and split them into two groups, have one group shovel dirt out of ditches while the other group follows behind them and shovels the dirt back into the ditch?

Clinton seemed to do well at around 33% at the end of his term. I would go with working it down to around 30%.
I have already offered many suggestions on cuts.

33%? 30%? To what are you referring? My 16% is in reference to limiting federal spending to 16% of GDP... Clinton certianly wasn't spending 33% of GDP.

So you just can't help making snide remarks.
Entertainment? No. Understanding what conservatives are thinking is educational, not entertaining.

You are the one who is disappointed that nobody wants to argue with you about where budget cuts should be made... That suggests you are here to entertain yourself with pointless bickering and not actually interested in understanding the perspectives of others.

 

[Lagboltz]

Source?

I read somewhere that the largest US companies have outsourced 3 million jobs. That means 2% is a lower bound. Where did you get .2%?

The gov can't create a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt. - Lag

So how does that work... We hire all the unemployed and split them into two groups, have one group shovel dirt out of ditches while the other group follows behind them and shovels the dirt back into the ditch?

More strawman. I never said that I thought the government should bludgeon the economy. I said what would happen if they tried to help the economy by directly creating jobs. Silly silly example. You seem to be in a sour mood.

33%? 30%? To what are you referring? My 16% is in reference to limiting federal spending to 16% of GDP... Clinton certianly wasn't spending 33% of GDP.

I was looking at this chart.

But this chart is more in line what you are thinking. I wonder why the large discrepancy.

You are the one who is disappointed that nobody wants to argue with you about where budget cuts should be made... That suggests you are here to entertain yourself with pointless bickering and not actually interested in understanding the perspectives of others.

You are wrong. BigRob made a great suggestion of where to look for the conservative thinking, and I did just that. Do you generally agree with Paul Ryan's plan?

 

[GenSeneca]

I read somewhere that the largest US companies have outsourced 3 million jobs. That means 2% is a lower bound. Where did you get .2%?

I'll post it again... Outsourcing impacts less than 0.2% of US employment.

But that's enough of that... You said companies need to stop outsourcing et cetera. I'd like to hear some specific examples that were hinted at, but not actually stated, by your use of "etc."

I never said that I thought the government should bludgeon the economy.

I never claimed you thought goverment SHOULD rack up debt to create a booming economy, but you clearly believe government CAN create a booming economy - at the cost of massive debt.

My question is, how?

I was looking at this chart.

But this chart is more in line what you are thinking. I wonder why the large discrepancy.

I use CBO numbers, whenever possible, to avoid the kind of inconsistancy you've stumbled upon with these two sources.

You are wrong. BigRob made a great suggestion of where to look for the conservative thinking, and I did just that.

To have something to argue against...

Do you generally agree with Paul Ryan's plan?

No, it's a bogus "plan" but if we're choosing between bad and worse, the Obama "plan" is worse.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'll post it again... Outsourcing impacts less than 0.2% of US employment.

But that's enough of that...

Not so fast. Your source shows only the yearly rate not the number of jobs lost so far.

You said companies need to stop outsourcing et cetera. I'd like to hear some specific examples that were hinted at, but not actually stated, by your use of "etc."

I already posted them.

No, it's a bogus "plan" but if we're choosing between bad and worse, the Obama "plan" is worse.

On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. Well, it seems that most of congress doesn't consider it a "bogus plan".

 

[GenSeneca]

Not so fast. Your source shows only the yearly rate not the number of jobs lost so far.

Your source showed... Oh that's right, you didn't have a source. You just remember reading something, somewhere.

I already posted them.

I'm not asking about your talking points on Enron and the like but actual, specific examples of what a company can do that you would consider to be in the best interest of the country.

Pay all their employees a "living" wage?

Pay more in taxes than they actually owe?

Operate at a loss for the sake of the greater good?

Specific examples... Saying that companies shouldn't focus on short term profit is about as vague as you can get.

On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan by a vote of 235-193. Well, it seems that most of congress doesn't consider it a "bogus plan".

Rather than having the federal budget follow it's schedualed growth at a rate of 12% per year, it would grow at a rate of 11% per year under the Ryan plan. Both Democrats and Republicans refer to these reductions in the expansion of the federal budget as "cuts", I think Orwell would agree, that is bogus.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not so fast. Your source shows only the yearly rate not the number of jobs lost so far.

If one wanted to know how outsourcing effected the economy one would want a yearly total (not a rate) so one could say how many jobs were lost in a particular year. One could add successive years to get totals across time or one could compare years to get a rate which would help to predict trends.

But it would also be a mistake to assume that outsourced jobs are bad for the economy. It may very well be that those whose jobs were outsourced would have lost them anyway, needed to switch to better jobs anyway...or that the companies did better and became more competitive in a world market which would be good for the economy. These companies might even hire back workers at better higher paying jobs after becoming more competitive. I know those are a lot of "may be s" but without even looking at them it is premature to say that outsourcing equals bad outcomes for the economy. I agree that in the short term it is bad for the individual worker who lost his job - but in the long run it might even be good for that worker when he has to move to a more productive sector of the economy.

Is this all just making excuses? No, because no one really understands or knows all the variables and how they play out and interact. Certainly politicians do not know enough to make decisions about the whole economy. But the invisible hand will result in a situation that is best for America.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your source showed... Oh that's right, you didn't have a source. You just remember reading something, somewhere.

I'm not going to spoon feed you sources. In light of your reference 3% sounds reasonable value so far, and your reference predicts in 15 years outsourcing will grow another 3.3%. That will make it 6.3%. If you want to challenge 3%, go ahead and find a source.

I'm not asking about your talking points on Enron and the like but actual, specific examples of what a company can do that you would consider to be in the best interest of the country.

Pay all their employees a "living" wage?

Pay more in taxes than they actually owe?

Operate at a loss for the sake of the greater good?

Specific examples... Saying that companies shouldn't focus on short term profit is about as vague as you can get.

Examples are in post 203.

Rather than having the federal budget follow it's schedualed growth at a rate of 12% per year, it would grow at a rate of 11% per year under the Ryan plan. Both Democrats and Republicans refer to these reductions in the expansion of the federal budget as "cuts", I think Orwell would agree, that is bogus.

Other than that, do you like the salient features of Ryan's plan?

 

[BigRob]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have many issues with his plan. Because his plan is 55 pages, I will focus one thing that is puzzling.

(Part of) Paul Ryan's plan:

If I understand this correctly, for those making really big bucks, their tax will be roughly 25% on earnings and zero % on interest, capital gains and dividends.

Let's take the famous billionaire exemplar Warren Buffet who paid 17.7% taxes on $46 M. Using the fact that his top margin was 35% taxable earnings and his capital gains was at 15%, a little bit of algebra shows roughly his taxable earnings was $6.2 M and his capital gains was $39.8 M.

Using Ryan's plan, Buffet's tax would be .25 x $6.2 M + 0 x $ 39.8 M = $1.55 M.
Buffet's percentage tax would then be 1.55/46.0 = 3.4%.

Did I understand Ryan's tax plan correctly?

Possibly, I am not entirely sure. But Buffet's example is a complete anomaly, and I think basing policy on it alone is a bad idea.

Buffet aside, are those rates better for the average American? I think we can say yes.

 

[BigRob]

Rather than having the federal budget follow it's schedualed growth at a rate of 12% per year, it would grow at a rate of 11% per year under the Ryan plan. Both Democrats and Republicans refer to these reductions in the expansion of the federal budget as "cuts", I think Orwell would agree, that is bogus.

I am not sure that this is true...under the Ryan Plan, the deficit ultimately will go to $0.

If you can grow GDP enough to offset slower increases in spending, you would be able to start cutting away at the deficit and debt.

 

[Dr.Who]

I am not sure that this is true...under the Ryan Plan, the deficit ultimately will go to $0.

If you can grow GDP enough to offset slower increases in spending, you would be able to start cutting away at the deficit and debt.

What makes anyone think that the gov has any ability to cause the GDP to grow? I have no doubt they could stifle it either through intentionally trying or perhaps incompetence, but can they intentionally make it grow?

 

[BigRob]

What makes anyone think that the gov has any ability to cause the GDP to grow? I have no doubt they could stifle it either through intentionally trying or perhaps incompetence, but can they intentionally make it grow?

Government has the ability to get out of the way.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not going to spoon feed you sources.

You haven't offered any sources.

In light of your reference 3% sounds reasonable value so far...

You have taken 0.2% and multiplied it by 15 (years) to arrive at 3%... That's either sheer ignorance or dishonesty since not all of those jobs are outsourced in the same year - and that's the only way your figure of 3% would be accurate.

...your reference predicts in 15 years outsourcing will grow another 3.3%.

Was this ignorance or dishonesty? The source cites the Forrester prediction which offers a worse case scenario that over 15 years there will be 3.3 million (not 3.3%) jobs displaced by outsourcing.

That will make it 6.3%.

Was this ignorance or dishonesty? Now you've taken a fictional number of 3% and added that to another fictional number, 3.3%, to arrive at 6.3%. You certainly have an active imagination.

If you want to challenge 3%, go ahead and find a source.

The source points to less than 0.2% in a given year. In an economy that both sheds and gains 30+ million jobs a year, the 220,000 jobs that are outsourced in a year are literally a fraction of a %. Not to mention the fact that the outsourcing of a job doesn't mean someone goes unemployed, or that other jobs aren't created as a result.

For example, the source cites Delta Airlines which outsourced 1000 call center jobs, saving $25 million as a result, and used the money they saved to create 1200 new reservation and sales positions within the company. That's a net gain of US jobs, thanks to outsourcing.

Examples are in post 203.

Lets see,

Enron syndrome...
Tax avoidance schemes...

You offered bumper sticker slogans but nothing of substance.

Other than that, do you like the salient features of Ryan's plan?

You'd have to be more specific.

 

[Dr.Who]

For example, the source cites Delta Airlines which outsourced 1000 call center jobs, saving $25 million as a result, and used the money they saved to create 1200 new reservation and sales positions within the company. That's a net gain of US jobs, thanks to outsourcing.

Exactly the point I tried to make earlier without any examples of illustrations - thanks. Outsourcing can be good for the economy (and probably is more good than bad on average), and in fact is not always bad for individuals.

 

[Lagboltz]

Possibly, I am not entirely sure. But Buffet's example is a complete anomaly, and I think basing policy on it alone is a bad idea.

It is not an anomaly at all. According to Forbes, half of the top 100 billionaires are in investment businesses as is Buffet, they would be in a similar tax position as Buffet. Anyone else in the top 1% would naturally have a large capital gains ratio.

The current average income tax rate is 33% for the top 1%. However the average tax they have been paying is 23.27% (compared to Buffet's 17.7%). A little algebra shows that their average taxable income is 46% of their total income and the rest, 54%, is capital gains. Using Ryan's plan their tax rate would drop from 35% to 25% on their taxable earnings and zero on their capital gains. Their full fed tax would become
TAX = INCOME x 46% x 25% = INCOME x 11.5%.

The upshot is their tax would drop from 33% to 11.5% on the average. That is about 1/3 of what the top 1% had been paying.

Buffet aside, are those rates better for the average American? I think we can say yes.

As long as Ryan's standard deductions are similar to the current deductions, the average tax would be about the same since around 50% of Americans already fall within the full deductions. It seems then that the brunt of the tax would fall on the upper middle class. The upper class taxes would be highly regressive and roughly range from 11.5% to 3.4% as you go higher in income.