Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > News & Current Events
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

News & Current Events Discuss Medicaid surge triggers cost concerns for states at the General Forum; Originally Posted by ShivaTD RE: Question #1 Pardon me while I digress, but once again, we are left puzzled and ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2014, 07:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Anna Maria Island
Posts: 1,345
Thanks: 140
Thanked 570 Times in 402 Posts
Default Re: Medicaid surge triggers cost concerns for states

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
RE: Question #1
Pardon me while I digress, but once again, we are left puzzled and un-compelled by your overly-wordy posts.

You hand us ONE anecdote suggesting ObamaCare is not causal to the new norm of part-time jobs and the 30-hour work week (and we are supposed to be convinced), while we can cite THOUSANDS of instances wherein large and small employers make the adjustments necessary to avoid the damaging impacts of the legislation. Even loyal union bosses have raised the alarm (well, at least those that are not already unfairly exempt from the legislation):

Quote:
Andrew Puzder: ObamaCare and the Part-Time Economy

The White House insists that the health-care law has not affected hiring. That's not what the numbers show.
WSJ - Oct. 10, 2013 7:31 p.m. ET

The health-care law's actual consequences unequivocally appear in the jobs data for this period. Between Jan. 1 and June 30, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy added 833,000 part-time jobs and lost 97,000 full-time jobs, for net creation of 736,000 jobs. In reality, the economy overall added no full-time jobs. Rather, it lost them.

It's not like this six-month boom in part-time jobs went unnoticed. In July, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke questioned whether the official unemployment rate fairly represented the state of the labor market because it didn't reflect factors such as "underemployment, part-time work." Also in July, three powerful unions wrote to the Obama administration complaining that ObamaCare would "destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class."

In August, Keith Hall, who ran the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008-12, looked at part-time hiring from the end of January through July and told a McClatchy reporter that the results were "really remarkable" and "a really high number for a six-month period. I'm not sure that has ever happened over six months before." .....

The logic for businesses is simple. If you have three employees working 40 hours per week they will produce 120 labor hours. Five employees working 24 hours per week also produce 120 labor hours. Employers must offer the three full-time employees health insurance or pay a penalty. They have no such obligation to the five part-time employees, making part-time employment less costly. Make something more expensive and employers will use less of it; make something less expensive and they will use more of it.
President Obama unilaterally and lawlessly postponed the full menu of ObamaCare requirements for large employers until later this year. Just wait until those business "adjustments" kick in.

With regard to raising the capital gains tax rate, your evocations seem more just another liberal diatribe concerning the emotion of "fairness" and "income equality", rather than business sense. Through the tears, to wit:

Quote:
THE TAX FOUNDATION - June 27, 2012

By David Block, William McBride .

A joint hearing held by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee on June 28 will discuss capital gains taxation in the context of broader tax reform. A number of proposed changes have been highlighted; The Bowles-Simpson proposal recommends taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as labor income, while many congressional Democrats recommend raising the rate, citing concerns about both revenue and inequality. Any proposal focusing on raising the rate will likely fail to raise the predicted revenue, as demonstrated by both economic history and the high burden already placed on American corporations.

The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption.

First, the tax is not adjusted for inflation, so any appreciation of assets is taxed at the nominal instead of the real value. This means investors must pay tax not only on the real return but also on the inflation created by the Federal Reserve.

Second, the capital gains tax is merely part of a long line of federal taxation of the same dollar of income. Wages are first taxed by payroll and personal income taxes, then again by the corporate income tax if one chooses to invest in corporate equities, and then again when those investments pay off in the form of dividends and capital gains. This puts corporations at a disadvantage relative to pass through business entities, whose owners pay personal income tax on distributed profits, instead of taxes on corporate income, capital gains, and dividends. One way corporations mitigate this excessive taxation is through debt rather than equity financing, since interest is deductible. This creates perverse incentives to over leverage, contributing to the boom and bust cycle.

Finally, a capital gains tax, like nearly all of the federal tax code, is a tax on future consumption. Future personal consumption, in the form of savings, is taxed, while present consumption is not. By favoring present over future consumption, savings are discouraged, which decreases future available capital and lowers long term growth.

Not only has a low capital gains tax rate worked to encourage savings and increase economic growth, a low capital gains rate has historically raised more in tax revenue. At a 2010 talk at the Cato Institute Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell and Dr. Richard W. Rahn argued that the government has actually raised more revenue with a lower long term capital gains tax rate than a higher rate. For example, in 2007 the IRS raised $122 billion with a 15% tax rate as opposed to $7.8 billion in 1977 ($26.7 billion in 2007 dollars) with a 40% tax rate. In fact, when President Bush signed into law a cut in the top rate from 20% to 15%, revenue increased from $51.3 billion in 2003 to $137.1 billion in 2007 (although it fell significantly after the 2008 financial crisis, understandably).

Attempting to use the tax code to address income inequality will likely disappoint those who seek to attack the lower tax rate on high net worth individuals caused by a lower capital gains and dividends rate. Inequalities caused by globalization and differing education levels will not be remedied by destroying future investment; to the contrary those most likely to be hurt the most by lower economic growth are those with lower incomes.
However well-intended, the liberal assault on income and wealth inequality - the entire dogma of "fairness" - thru legislation as f*cked up as Obamacare and higher capital gains taxes will NOT improve the plight of the middle class. The gains in liberal warm and fuzzy emotions will be offset quite suddenly by the realities of economic and business common sense. Alas, the liberal high of "feeling good" is oh so fleeting.

Now, back to the Medicare surge triggers concerns for the states. Sorry.

Last edited by Harvey; 06-02-2014 at 07:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Harvey For This Useful Post:
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 06-02-2014, 02:04 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,312 Times in 1,839 Posts
Default Re: Medicaid surge triggers cost concerns for states

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
You hand us ONE anecdote suggesting ObamaCare is not causal to the new norm of part-time jobs and the 30-hour work week (and we are supposed to be convinced), while we can cite THOUSANDS of instances wherein large and small employers make the adjustments necessary to avoid the damaging impacts of the legislation. Even loyal union bosses have raised the alarm (well, at least those that are not already unfairly exempt from the legislation):
Yes, enterprise must change their business plan to adjust for costs. Those costs increases though are actually a relatively small percentage of gross revenue and many seen to ignore that fact.

For example Walmart claims that 90% of it's employees are already covered by the Walmart group insurance plan or another insurance plan (e.g. as a dependent on their spouses or parent's plan or are covered by Medicare). Only 10% of all Walmart employees are then affected by Obamacare and that cost is insignificant relative to the gross sales receipts of Walmart.

For a small enterprise the cost is about $2/hr for their employees. That amount is easily accommodated by the business plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
President Obama unilaterally and lawlessly postponed the full menu of ObamaCare requirements for large employers until later this year. Just wait until those business "adjustments" kick in.
I disagree with the delay of the "employer mandate" so you're preaching to the choir on this issue. I also disagree with several provisions of the Employer Mandate because it doesn't cover all enterprises and all employees. If properly designed it virtually eliminates the "Individual Mandate" that I object to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
With regard to raising the capital gains tax rate, your evocations seem more just another liberal diatribe concerning the emotion of "fairness" and "income equality", rather than business sense. Through the tears, to wit:
I will cite the following erroneous statement from the Tax Foundation:

Quote:
The justification for a lower tax rate on capital gains relative to ordinary income is threefold: it is not indexed for inflation, it is a double tax, and it encourages present consumption over future consumption.
First of all the "income tax" is not indexed for inflation to my knowledge and if it is taxing capital gains as "earned income" would also be indexed for inflation.

Next, most capital gains are not related to "dividends" from enterprise that can, in theory, represent double-taxation. As also noted my tax proposal makes dividend payments tax deductable to the corporation which removes any possible double taxation.

Finally most "capital gains' are not spent on consumption but instead are re-invested resulting in zero consumption. Always remember that every dollar invested results in zero consumption so investments actually reduce consumption in the market. An investment does not consume any goods or service and does not contribute to the GDP or generate jobs (except in the brokerage houses) that are based upon consumption and consumption alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
However well-intended, the liberal assault on income and wealth inequality - the entire dogma of "fairness" - thru legislation as f*cked up as Obamacare and higher capital gains taxes will NOT improve the plight of the middle class. The gains in liberal warm and fuzzy emotions will be offset quite suddenly by the realities of economic and business common sense. Alas, the liberal high of "feeling good" is oh so fleeting.
Somewhere else, I forget where, I ran the numbers on my federal income tax proposal for 2013. Based upon general spending and gross personal income the income tax rate for 2013 under my proposal would have been 29% which is only 3/4ths of the 39.6% tax rate we currently have in income taxes. We don't need to consider the lower current income tax rates that make our current income tax progressive because the "exemption" under my proposal already creates progressive income tax rates for all households.

29% compared to 39.6% is a TAX CUT and if conservatives want a tax cut my proposal provides it and still would have funded all of the general expenditures of the US goverment for 2013. My proposal lowers the income tax rate and balances the US budget.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harvey View Post
Now, back to the Medicare surge triggers concerns for the states. Sorry.
Shall we? I'm for it. If you want to address my tax proposal then there is a thread on it.

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/ope...-taxation.html
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
concerns, cost, for, medicaid, states, surge, triggers

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0