postillion: Housing Market and U.S. Economy

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:09:52 EST

Having never lived in a house for most of my life (I grew in one city apartment after another and my parents only settled into a house after I went to college), I am still struggling to understand the effect of the house mortgage market on the U.S. economy

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:44:12 EST

Might be interesting to see what the effective tax rate is for the top 5%

It's 28.9%

I'm willing to bet that their social insurance tax rate is miniscule

Of course it is: the FICA income limi

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:02:44 EST

The figures I quoted included a category called "Effective Social Insurance Tax Rate" which was between 8.3% and 9.7% for all income quartiles except the highest, which was 6.0%.

OK, the EIC explains the low effective tax rate for the bottom quin

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:28:37 EST

You really need to read a little more skeptically

The figures I quoted included a category called "Effective Social Insurance Tax Rate" which was between 8.3% and 9.7% for all income quartiles except the highest, which was 6.

JimmyHavok: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:07:05 EST

Or put it into a European-holding mutual fund for an even better rate of return.

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:04:39 EST

"Total Effective Federal Tax Rate?" Just looking at those numbers, it seems apparent that they don't include FICA. A little bit of examination makes it apparent that

zyxwvutsr: Re: I'd like definitions, and parameters, please.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:55:47 EST

Is the middle-class growing?

The definition of "middle class" is almost entirely arbitrary. My preferred definition is the middle three income quartiles. That has the advantages of being reasonable (most folks implicitly agre

stevetherobot: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:30:27 EST

Instead of putting it in savings you could invest it in a mutual fund holding only U.S. companies. You'd get a better rate or return and you'd be stimulating the economy.

permazorch: I'd like definitions, and parameters, please.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:24:43 EST

Is the middle-class growing? How much money does one person (or nuclear family) have to make per year to join the middle-class, currently?

Where is the line between 'poor' and 'lower middle-class'?

Where do we divide between 'lower' and 'middle' and

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:29:53 EST

While the US may have a more progressive tax burden at the moment (though I would like to see your sources), that doesn't mean there aren't people actively working to regress it, particularly by exempting non-wage income from taxes

joshv: Re: central planning

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:37:04 EST
"Someone never heard of the Fed."
So, the Fed decides how much of any particular good or commodity will be produced or sold in any particular part of the nation and at what price? Good to know. And here I was thinking that they just control

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:31:12 EST
the top quintile = high wages, right? Funny thing, that top quintile starts at $88,000. That doesn't seem like a whole lot o' money to me, since my household is right around there and we don't feel, for instance, like we could afford to

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:59:13 EST

...FICA, since it is a tax that is only levied on wages, and is higher on low wages than on high wages
The FICA burden is fairly flat except for the top quintile. But the overall total effective federal tax rate is much more

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:16:26 EST
The entire FICA burden is on wage-earners, not just the "major" part of it.
However, non-wage income is still taxed. The tears over that injustice flow heavily in the halls of the RNC.
The "solution" to the '80s Social Security "crisis"

JimmyHavok: central planning

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:04:55 EST
Because there is no central planning of the economy.
Someone never heard of the Fed.

JimmyHavok: monopoly

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:03:27 EST
Utility monopolies are indeed a problem, however, the alternative is wastefully redundant services. The key is to get effective regulation, instead of regulators who are in bed with the company. That can take more than a bit of effort.
Theor

skeeter1: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:37:50 EST
Correction,
"Well, I won't be getting a refund, since I've been unemployed for several years now and pay no taxes. "
I'm still paying a boatload of property taxes, and the sales taxes here are outrageous.

gerrymander: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:31:34 EST
Well, I won't be getting a refund, since I've been unemployed for several years now and pay no taxes.
If the link zyx posted above is correct, it doesn't matter if you pay taxes or not. You will, however, need to file a tax return for 2007 which

zyxwvutsr: Re: socialism and planned economies

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:49:50 EST
Yeah, the Democrats just voted for a tax cut. I mean, what the fuck? (I think I read about this in the Book of Revelations.)

pO157: Re: socialism and planned economies

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:31:14 EST
So it's a government run giant Refund Anticipation Loan? The corner tax place with the lady in the giant foam statue of liberty suit would be proud.
Except you don't have to pay it back if they give you too much and there is no 50% fee? Hmm... maybe the

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:21:53 EST

...the whole idea of FICA, which is to place the major burden of taxes onto wage-earners
The entire FICA burden is on wage-earners, not just the "major" part of it.

Another idea that was floated was to incre

pO157: Re: Just going to throw this out there.

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:07:08 EST
That is an excellent plan, however it wouldn't even work that well for us here in NY. The gas company, in their infinite wisdom, decided to add a $17-21 surcharge to everyones gas bill to cover the rebates they have to pass out for home improvements and en

zyxwvutsr: Re: socialism and planned economies

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 10:05:25 EST
There certainly is an element of welfare to this plan, but it's far from being pure socialist wealth redistribution. I can't find any hard figures at the moment (indeed, perhaps none exist), but I estimate that about $30 billion (from the total $168

skeeter1: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:57:31 EST
Well, I won't be getting a refund, since I've been unemployed for several years now and pay no taxes. If I did get one, I'd use it to pay the credit card. What difference does it make if I use the credit card and the internet or cash a c

ThePlague: Re: Just going to throw this out there.

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:40:35 EST
Yeah, I'm not getting squat either. That's why I've decided not to spend some money this year for home remodeling. I figure I will negate the effect of a few hundred of those $300 "rebates" for people who don't even pay taxes by personally opti

novy: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:58:58 EST
Another subtler idea behind rebates: devalue US dollar even further, increasing exports and encouraging Canadians, for whom prices across our southern boundary will be in regular effective decline, to buy stuff at American stores. I saw article saying that

wetkarma: socialism and planned economies

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:38:31 EST

...how is Bush's plan not the Socialism?
Because there is no central planning of the economy. Congress is giving away cold hard cash, with no strings attached. You can spend the money on whatever you choose without

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:32:30 EST
That FICA suspension idea occurred to me, too. But that would go against the whole idea of FICA, which is to place the major burden of taxes onto wage-earners.
Another idea that was floated was to increase the food stamp stipend. That would

gerrymander: Re: Worst possible solution

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:18:07 EST
I don't see why the withholding holiday is a bad idea.
I wrote that poorly, jwb. I agree that a withholding holiday is an innovative idea which would likely accomplish what the stimulus package purports to.

jwb: Re: Worst possible solution

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 21:35:17 EST
I don't see why the withholding holiday is a bad idea. Low-income people pay FICA year-round, while very high income earners generally hit the FICA ceiling early in the year. By having a FICA holiday you put money into the hands of wage earners

gerrymander: Re: Worst possible solution

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:42:20 EST
Increased spending on consumer goods will give the economy a push, but other uses won't help at all. If you stick the money in savings or use it to pay overdue bills or otherwise reduce your debt load (Visa etc), the money isn't recirculating. It's goin

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:40:10 EST

If you stick the money in savings or use it to pay overdue bills or otherwise reduce your debt load (Visa etc), the money isn't recirculating
That's not necessarily true. Paying an overdue bill helps the cash flow of whatever

delete me: Re: Worst possible solution

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:59:20 EST
Really, the handing out of cash (checks) is just so people can be thrilled with whoever's handing out the money. It certainly would be more effective if the government spent the money for us, ie., everyone gets a California-manufactured Corolla fender* shi

delete me: Fat-fingered the 6

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:47:55 EST
I'll be getting $300, excuse me. Unless the product of a one-night stand from 13 years ago shows up.

delete me: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:42:33 EST
Alas, if everyone saved their money or payed down their debts without increasing their spending, the prevailing economic theory is that the recession should continue. So the best result is that I save my money, and you all go out and spend it on something.

delete me: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:37:45 EST
To be fair, it's the opposite of what I want to do. But I'll be wrapping up the cheaper part of school soon, and will need a full time job so I can continue on to a 4-year school part-time. I'd much rather be buying more video games and farkles for my moto

pO157: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:59:50 EST
You should. It's just game theory writ large. The best outcome for each person is if they put theirs towards their debts or savings, while everybody else spends it on electronics or what have you.
Then again, maybe the BEST outcome would be if everybod

pO157: -2 Obnoxious

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:47:56 EST
Man, imagine what would have happened if I had actually editorialized on the above instead of presenting my recollection of an anecdote.

logan: Worst possible solution

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:29:40 EST
The idea behind the rebate as an economic stimulus package is that Americans will get $300 cold, hard cash, go out and spend it (preferably on American-made stuff), and the increased spending will give the economy a push. It won't work.

port1080: Re: A couple suggestions

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:58:35 EST
Other possibility - buy antiques! That way the whole value is going into the pocket of some antique dealer somewhere (yeah, I guess back the chain of sale he got it from somewhere, but most dealers buy from estate lots after someone dies, or just from peo

zyxwvutsr: Re: A couple suggestions

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:13:44 EST
In another discussion about this stimulus package, someone mentioned that people who run out and spend their rebate* on, say, a new television are inevitably sending some portion of their stimulus money out of the country because so many manufactured goods

zyxwvutsr: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:44:43 EST
Yeah, way to stick it to the president!
Although...you're really doing the opposite of what the Democrats want. It's the Democratic Party, after all, that is in control of Congress. Also, in the

What will you do with your Bush Bucks? (Trees And Things)

postillion: Housing Market and U.S. Economy

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

JimmyHavok: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

zyxwvutsr: Re: I'd like definitions, and parameters, please.

stevetherobot: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

permazorch: I'd like definitions, and parameters, please.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

joshv: Re: central planning

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

JimmyHavok: central planning

JimmyHavok: monopoly

skeeter1: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

gerrymander: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

zyxwvutsr: Re: socialism and planned economies

pO157: Re: socialism and planned economies

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

pO157: Re: Just going to throw this out there.

zyxwvutsr: Re: socialism and planned economies

skeeter1: Re: What will you do with your Bush Bucks?

ThePlague: Re: Just going to throw this out there.

novy: Re: Worst possible solution

wetkarma: socialism and planned economies

JimmyHavok: Re: Worst possible solution

gerrymander: Re: Worst possible solution

jwb: Re: Worst possible solution

gerrymander: Re: Worst possible solution

zyxwvutsr: Re: Worst possible solution

delete me: Re: Worst possible solution

delete me: Fat-fingered the 6

delete me: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

delete me: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

pO157: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!

pO157: -2 Obnoxious

logan: Worst possible solution

port1080: Re: A couple suggestions

zyxwvutsr: Re: A couple suggestions

zyxwvutsr: Re: Totally opposite of the GWB wants!