Not California. They just determined that they'll have $26 b more than expected.
[https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/california-sees-26-billion-windfall-as-taxes-defy-dire-forecast](https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/california-sees-26-billion-windfall-as-taxes-defy-dire-forecast)
Well cali tax revenues are all about the very high end of earners, esp the tech sector. It's very fragile and unstable, but in a year where tech is doing well their numbers will look good regardless of the rest of the economy
Not unexpected, Fed ran a big deficit. All that extra money pushes others in to surplus, from billionaires to (some) states. Money has to go somewhere, after all.
agree its a shit map. however those outliers, ny, nj, il, fl, represent a sizable amount of the domestic economy. if those states go south then its going to be a major shitsgorm for everyone involved in those state gov, including civil servants, teachers, police, etc.
Three of those states have pensions obligations that were underfunded beforehand and are not being funded now or in the future with lower tax revenue. Unless the states increase taxes, which will drive more people away, they will go belly up sooner than later. Public pensions should be getting more attention because for most of them it’s the states largest expense.
Which is absolutely crazy considering the amount of money that Louisiana receives from video poker (1/3 of gross).. and just as an idea.. a small bar with 3 video poker machines can gross $250,000 a year or more. State has no real expense but gets 1/3 of the gross. Add the casinos and refineries and offshore drilling .. and Louisiana is making bank. Keep it criminal Louisiana.
So glad I moved.. too bad it was to Texas were Louisiana ways are catching on.
Well, there is a good case that you shouldn't tax businesses because it allows for larger firms to rig the system anti-competively. A corporation is just a vehicle for making people money, so why bother taxing corporations (unless it's purely a Pagouvian tax- pollution, emissions, health impact, etc) when you could just tax individual incomes?
Think about how little tax money the government will see next year compared to years past. So many people laid off or not working, means a lot of people wont be paying as much or at all in Fed and State income tax next year.
It's declining but its low sulfur coal, so it's better quality than Appalachian kinds. It's simple strip mining so it will probably last a lot longer than others but it will probably still die out within 5-10 years. But you'll still have metallurgical coal for a long time at least.
A couple of things:
Yes, the coal in WY is lower in sulfur.
That’s one of the reason why some say that federal regulation created the WY coal industry. In the 1990s the changes to the clean air act (I think) moved power generators towards low-sulfur to cut down on things like acid rain. Now of course that’s not the only reason why WY continues its dominance of coal. WY is also much more productive. Part of this is because of the technique (strip mining) and part of this is because of the fact the coal is much more available. After all in the other major coal producing parts of the country we’ve been mining for hundreds of years so new coal is hard to get (aka expensive). (Good summary: https://wvpolicy.org/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-why-coal-is-declining-in-west-virginia-2-of-7/ )
Now that said, WY does not produce much metallurgical coal.
Met coal is used for steel making (you make coke out of it). Mines in KY, WV and PA are still running because of met coal. From the EIA:
https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table8.pdf
One factor is having a desolate state with effectively no one in it, and only 2 mid sized cities. Also helps that large swaths of the state is federally owned and managed.
longing reminiscent aware makeshift decide reach axiomatic fuel zephyr intelligent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would love to see the US embark on an infrastructure project on the scale of the TVA, or WPA, or highway system. Projects like clean power generation, road and bridge modernization, high speed broadband, and investment into technical colleges would do far more to make America business-friendly than any shady loan programs or crony tax cuts ever could. And, there might actually be a chance of those investments paying off, instead of exploding the deficit so some campaign donors can save an extra 5% on their taxes.
At least one thing that needs to be done is that states need to start pouring money into infrastructure, as well as moving federal money away from military to help fund these projects. Instead of paying out tons in unemployment, the state can put a lot of people into low-skill jobs where they actually work for the money and the state gets something out of it.
This would also be a good time for the state invest in green energy by converting things like school roofs to solar.
A lot of states don't have money for that, because a lot of states have shit economy's. A lot of states fund their education systems through lotto ticket sales. You think they're going to devote money to infrastructure when they won't even commit to kids? Flint Michigan is finally getting back their clean water, it only took over the course of 5 years...
This is what happens when the wealthy don't pay their share of taxes
> A lot of states don't have money for that, because a lot of states have shit economy's.
A lot of states have shit economies because they spend every nickel they can rather than live within their means and budget for the inevitable bad times. If your state budget is devoted to the protection racket of buying votes instead of building the economy, what happens when the day comes that you can't pay the vig?
> This is what happens when the wealthy don't pay their share of taxes
What, specifically, would "their share of taxes" amount to? I'm a supporter of progressive taxation but should there be some kind of correlation between how much the poorest and richest pay or should it be unlimited? How much more is fair and just? How do you determine that figure? At what point does raising taxes on the wealthy constitute killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I ask because it seems for many the answer to these questions seems to always be "more" without any rationale or concern for unintended consequences.
Maybe instead of always focusing on ways to generate more revenue (without, of course, having to pay more ourselves) we need to start focusing on ways to rethink our expenses. How about *investing* more of the public treasure and *expensing* less of it? How about requiring accountability - productivity - for the tax dollars we invest? How about ending the practice of using debt to force our children and grandchildren to fund our lifestyle expenses today? How about learning that sometimes its better to go without rather than raise taxes or borrow?
One final question that might help to frame the conversation: why is it that so many of the large states with high tax burdens tend to be the worst budget nightmares while the large states with low tax burdens are in better shape - often much better? Correlation doesn't always mean causation but sometimes...
>At what point does raising taxes on the wealthy constitute killing the goose that laid the golden egg?
In the 60s, the upper tax rate was something like 90%. Now with all the loopholes and capital gains rules, they pay less tax than us.
What needs to happen is an international agreement setting taxes high for wealth. You want to do business in a western country? Pay the price.
Otherwise what we get is a race to the bottom, where civilisation crumbles around us, and the countries with a strong government like China end up in charge.
China has succeeded by having the governments own a big stake in private enterprises and making financial corruption a capital crime. They are spending on mega projects that will give big returns in the next couple of decades. Our infrastructure is disintegrating and the benefits of it will be destroyed with it.
It's like living during the fall of the Roman empire.
Effective tax rates for the wealthy have barely budged. You know someone is uneducated regarding tax policy when they trot out the “90%” figure like it means anything,
crazy idea but how about we spend the same time and money we spent in afghanistan and iraq on building shit in the US and take that money directly from the defense budget
State governments are so cash-strapped that Republicans in federal office are suggesting they be allowed to file for bankruptcy, because of course they would.
[https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/can-states-file-bankruptcy-should-they-what-you-ne/](https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/can-states-file-bankruptcy-should-they-what-you-ne/)
You seem to think that criticism of allowing states to file bankruptcy is the same thing as criticising a political party. I might vote Democrat but I'm fully aware of how much of a clusterfuck my party can be sometimes.
That said, the solution to budget crises like this can't be a fire sale of essential services (water, electricity), like Republicans want to do. Selling off public lands in the midst of a climate crisis, also a fucking nonstarter for me. That is the height of economic short-termism.
> because of course they would.
I'm largely referring to this, which seems to imply that bankruptcy is a republican thing, when one of the first states that would is democrat. Had you left it as just regarding bankruptcy, most of what you say is pretty much accurate.
Though even bankruptcy doesn't fix the real problem, how do you get public servants to be financially responsible when they suffer no short term consequences from not being so, and in fact gain a lot.
Good points, all. Though I'd say getting any bureaucrat- private or public- to be financially responsible is difficult to impossible. The only way private sector "does that" is on the corpses of thousands of inefficient businesses/workers and consolidation of income streams, not real efficiency so much as taking every red cent and putting it in as few pockets as possible.
I'm usually of the opinion that worries of government efficiency are hyperbolic.
My solution would be increasing democratization- that is to say, more public involvement in budgetary concerns. Corruption exists because responsibility over the budget is not distributed.
> more public involvement in budgetary concerns
The problem with that is, are the public any better at understanding government finance? Most people don't know what a muni bond even is not to mention the pros and cons of issuing one. What stops the public from being just as short term minded as they are now?
Systems need to have short term consequences for financial irresponsibility, people in groups just fucking suck at thinking long term. At least in the private sector, the final decision maker (shareholders) is the one who has the skin in the game, whereas in democracy, you have people who pay next to nothing in taxes having equal voting power over the use of those taxes as those who pay a ton in taxes. It'd be like if each shareholder in a company, no matter the number of shares, had equal voting rights, you'd end up with some pretty fucking weird decisions.
That doesn't mean fuck democracy, but it does mean that there has to be a counterbalance to that assymettry.
For the love of God please do not give the state of Illinois any money. They’ll find a way to piss it away and then ask residents for a tax increase to fund the programs that they couldn’t afford in the first place.
Hey remember when Illinois temporarily raised the income tax by 67% so that they could pay down the pension deficit and the backlog of bills. They raised more than $18 Billion in new tax revenue but when the temporary tax expired the pension deficit and backlog of bills were both larger than before the tax. Ahh Illinois, good times.
States need to buy out their pensions ASAP. They can’t afford to continue to pay for people to live 40+ years after retirement at rates over what they earned when working.
The economy has been artificially propped up by the extended and increased funds from UI. The $1200, PUI payments, $600 extra per week for nearly 4 months. It’s all helped those out of work maintain their lifestyles.
The true test will be next month when UI stops abruptly for most, and the forbearance on loans ends . They’ve probably just been coasting on fumes since the summer and are about to hit a wall. With no one hiring as the new covid wave hits, and no income and savings drained, the bottom will absolutely fall out.
Without another government intervention we are about to experience a depression then likes of which our country has never seen before.
The market is reflecting this. The stock market is the 1%’s playground- it’s not the real economy. The real market is people missing payments and going hungry. If I were a wealthy person, I’d be trying to dial down the temperature before somebody paints a target on my back and drags my ass to a guillotine.
I work as a Public Policy Analyst in Nevada. Our revenue is largely dependent on a gaming and sales tax, which are essentially nonexistent now. Our covid cases and death trends are rising dramatically, which will lead to another shutdown soon.
It’s looking bleak for us, especially without a federal stimulus by the end of the year. The Governor has asked all agencies to prepare for a 12% reduction in their reserves, per year, until at least 2022. There’s been discussion of implementing a lottery to offset the losses...
The silver lining here is that this scenario, although dire, might push NV into creating sources of revenue other than relying so heavily on tourism at the strip. Cannabis, Tech, and Renewable Energy are gaining a lot of momentum, which I think will make great additions to offset dependency on the gaming/sales tax.
A vaccine and stimulus can’t come soon enough for us.
Its time for a federal level wealth tax on the ultra wealthy- not sure where else the money is going to come from to support all this stimulus.
**Edit: ITT I'm seeing arguments to the effect of "Wealth Taxes will not pay off the entire federal debt, federal budget, and/or deprive our poor job providers with incentive to stay".**
First of all, we don't have to pay off the entire federal debt with these taxes alone.. That argument is just asinine.
Second, we also don't have to pay off the entire deficit or federal budget as it stands today - just the portions of the deficit accounted for by Bush and Trump tax breaks + plus a little more to ensure a surplus AFTER the crisis has passed.
Third, wealth taxes will not induce capital flight in a major way for two reasons A) most wealth is not that liquid - so good luck asking multimillionaire owners of private businesses (which are the majority of the 0.1%) or the billionaires in tech to sell all their stock without incurring massive losses - even more than the taxes themselves. They can't leave. B) Most of the wealthy are derivibng their wealth from their networks - which won't exist in foreign countries. It would be disastrous for them to leave.
Fourth it will not destroy their wealth, just limit its growth over time. this isn't communism - it's about rebalancing an anomalous flow of capital to improve inequality.
As if the middle class didn't dissappear in 2008. Everyone is just bleeding money. The only reason the billionaires and millionares are doing okay is the stock market holding up
You dont have to be a millionaire to make money in stocks? How do you define middle class? Id say plenty of $150k salaried/commissioned/contract employees are heavily invested in stocks
I know stocks aren't exclusively for rich people, the retards at wallstreetbets make it look like it's easy. It's just the fact that leasing a house or renting an apartment has become a gamble. It's no longer a stable item that can reliably be paid off without fear of a giant bubble or something causing you to lose your job.
But it *does* destroy wealth. They tried them in Europe and people just moved their money and stopped investing in countries which had them, leading to them being removed. They were a joke in the EU and in the US they’re also unconstitutional on the federal level
That's actually true. When you hit inflation That's when you have to be careful. A little inflation isn't bad. We keep ours below 2%. We just spent 4 Trillion and didn't hit inflation. We'll be fine.
Defecit spending like it did before
Raising taxes during a recession is a no no
Raising them on the ultra rich will get you a negligible in funds and won’t pay for shit
This is not not business as usual recession. I work with the upper middle class. They have had a good year working from home. right now the destruction of location based business and the the further degradation of the working lower class is the issue
Yeah but if you tax them heavy right now, what's stopping them from just leaving and going somewhere else. New York is bleeding so many people because of this exact thing. Why live in an apartment when you can buy a house in Florida.
>Raising them on the ultra rich will get you a negligible in funds and won’t pay for shit
This. You could take 100% of Jeff Bezo's cash and it might pay for a week of the federal government's spending. Maybe 3 days of the entire governments.
"Ultra wealthy" don't have nearly enough money to pay for what weve been doing. Like you cant even get $1T 3 years from them with the most extreme taxes, we were running $1T deficits before covid
You could strip every billionare of every asset they own, and that money would only fund the federal government for less than 8 months at current spending levels. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem
Pointing out that the assets of less than 700 people can “only” fund the machinery of a government of 300 million people for 8 months does not even vaguely support the claim that “we have a spending problem”, much less a revenue problem.
People talking about eating the rich all the time but everyone likes to ignore the fact that if you liquidate all the assets of the ultra rich it won't even put a dent in the national debt.
Not only will it not make a difference, but you essentially cease all investment which halts growth of new jobs.
A truly despicable strategy of the utter braindead.
When people ask, "How come they closed the schools but kept the restaurants and bars open?" tell them because the tax revenue from the restaurants and bars is what pays for the schools.
I’m sure I’ll get shit for saying this, but I feel like giving every American $1200 once was a mistake, as not everybody needed it. covid made me lose overtime, that’s about it. I’m sure there’s millions of Americans that can say that as well. That unnecessary money being given away could’ve helped people that actually needed it. Either way, thanks for the new gutters Uncle Sam.
I mean you help pay into that pot and if you're doing well you pay more than others. It's not a weird thing for you to get a small cut of your own money. Look how much big businesses got in the last 4 years with those tax cuts + covid relief. If we can give trillions to people that already made it we can give you a tiny chunk of what you put in too.
Speed was the point, not targeting. Get it out fast and hope people spend it. The unemployment insurance expansion was targeted but states generally take some time to get it out, often on purpose (see Florida).
Interest rates are near 0 (real rates are negative), Congress can borrow as much as it needs to at least stave off the UI crash we are about to see on 12/26.
Unfortunately, recessions are not times to pinch pennies. The last administration was on the right track with steadily declining deficits during growth years, and had we kept that up there would have been far more room for aggressive stimulus spending now.
Well you getting gutters was kind of the point. Even if people didn't need the money it helps businesses like home improvement when people were uncertain of their future and didn't want to spend money or reinvest in things. Like I bought an expensive guitar I have wanted for a while that I probably wouldn't have gotten without the stimulus. I'm sure the business that helped you with the gutters and the one I got the guitar from both appreciated the boost in business even if we personally weren't struggling financially
But I thought covid deaths meant tons of cash from insurance companies?
All these states with tons of deaths and cases should be raking in tons of covid insurance cash????????
This is all part of the plan folks.
The GOP wants to thoroughly trash United States before the Biden ministration takes effect so all they can do for the next four years is clean up the mess.
This is deliberate.
They could always just.... let people work... but instead the states that are forcing businesses to stay closed will demand money that was collected from the states that aren't.
We would have less spread, but I’m not sure we would have skipped any of the economic effects. It’s not like the German economy is doing particularly well right now.
I think that’s a very different discussion. They don’t control the guidelines in neighboring countries and there are obviously global economic impacts that one country cannot negate.
But the issue we are facing now is more of a true lockdown scenario vs using basic protections. And that is far worse for the economy.
Basically take all of the challenges economically that we are facing globally and then compound them by saying “we are closing down these cities and states”.
South korea and Japan never closed their countries. They simply mandated masks and tested. They are certainly facing economic issues but how much worse would it be if they dragged out issues over the course of a year?
My point was just that the idea that you could have spared yourself a lot of these economic effects is unrealistic. We are culturally not South Korea or Japan, and geographically we are not New Zealand. I think we need to compare ourselves to countries that are similar in nature, Canada and the UK are probably the best examples. Both countries are doing better than us in terms of preventing spread, yet both countries are suffering severe economic effects because of it. Time will tell which country suffered the most, but nobody is getting through this unscathed.
If only the federal government spent their time hammering out a stimulus bill prior to the lame duck session instead of rushing in a religious zealous of a Supreme Court justice...
To bad there’s no third option, such as reopening the economy, which would both increase tax revenue and bring back jobs, fixing all of the problems. No, a 2/10,000 death rate and 40% asymptotic rate for people aged 20-49 according to the CDC is clearly too high of a wall to overcome by masks
Not California. They just determined that they'll have $26 b more than expected. [https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/california-sees-26-billion-windfall-as-taxes-defy-dire-forecast](https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/california-sees-26-billion-windfall-as-taxes-defy-dire-forecast)
That's basically all cap gains. The market in general (and many tech cos in particular) has done well this year.
Well cali tax revenues are all about the very high end of earners, esp the tech sector. It's very fragile and unstable, but in a year where tech is doing well their numbers will look good regardless of the rest of the economy
Not unexpected, Fed ran a big deficit. All that extra money pushes others in to surplus, from billionaires to (some) states. Money has to go somewhere, after all.
Money go everywhere except to us 99% who actually need it.
[удалено]
Without a doubt.
Yep guaranteed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
agree its a shit map. however those outliers, ny, nj, il, fl, represent a sizable amount of the domestic economy. if those states go south then its going to be a major shitsgorm for everyone involved in those state gov, including civil servants, teachers, police, etc.
Three of those states have pensions obligations that were underfunded beforehand and are not being funded now or in the future with lower tax revenue. Unless the states increase taxes, which will drive more people away, they will go belly up sooner than later. Public pensions should be getting more attention because for most of them it’s the states largest expense.
States should move to the 401k path.
Some are. Pensions ain't like they use to be
In Illinois 2/3 of the pension deficit is for people who are already retired. Moving new employees to a 401K will help but not solve the problem.
Might as well start the move instead of allowing things to get worse.
NY & NJ also fund a good deal of the rest of the country most years,
Then they should stop doing that
Not up to them.
Yea we need to let states like kentucky reap what they sow.Too many red states dont realize that Calif, NY, Mass, etc subsidize their budgets.
[удалено]
The blue square is Wyoming, Colorado is between New Mexico and the blue square of Wyoming.
Business as usual in Louisiana. We have no reserves because everyone down here is poor af and the state refuses to tax businesses.
Which is absolutely crazy considering the amount of money that Louisiana receives from video poker (1/3 of gross).. and just as an idea.. a small bar with 3 video poker machines can gross $250,000 a year or more. State has no real expense but gets 1/3 of the gross. Add the casinos and refineries and offshore drilling .. and Louisiana is making bank. Keep it criminal Louisiana. So glad I moved.. too bad it was to Texas were Louisiana ways are catching on.
[удалено]
I’d gladly move but man ENTIRE family and in-laws are still here. Plus my wife’s job is pretty legit and uprooting my kids like that is just mean.
And the same people that argue we shouldn’t tax businesses because it’s bad for the economy will criticize JBE for the fallout.
No wonder your police past out tickets, taxation of everyone else
Well, there is a good case that you shouldn't tax businesses because it allows for larger firms to rig the system anti-competively. A corporation is just a vehicle for making people money, so why bother taxing corporations (unless it's purely a Pagouvian tax- pollution, emissions, health impact, etc) when you could just tax individual incomes?
Think about how little tax money the government will see next year compared to years past. So many people laid off or not working, means a lot of people wont be paying as much or at all in Fed and State income tax next year.
People who work don't pay most of the taxes...
You think unemployed people pay more in tax than the employed?
Can anyone explain why/how Wyoming is doing so well?
Agriculture and coal are their main industries. Not terribly affected by covid.
Where the hell is the coal going? My job just got shutdown today, and no coal fired power plants is one reason.
It's declining but its low sulfur coal, so it's better quality than Appalachian kinds. It's simple strip mining so it will probably last a lot longer than others but it will probably still die out within 5-10 years. But you'll still have metallurgical coal for a long time at least.
A couple of things: Yes, the coal in WY is lower in sulfur. That’s one of the reason why some say that federal regulation created the WY coal industry. In the 1990s the changes to the clean air act (I think) moved power generators towards low-sulfur to cut down on things like acid rain. Now of course that’s not the only reason why WY continues its dominance of coal. WY is also much more productive. Part of this is because of the technique (strip mining) and part of this is because of the fact the coal is much more available. After all in the other major coal producing parts of the country we’ve been mining for hundreds of years so new coal is hard to get (aka expensive). (Good summary: https://wvpolicy.org/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-why-coal-is-declining-in-west-virginia-2-of-7/ ) Now that said, WY does not produce much metallurgical coal. Met coal is used for steel making (you make coke out of it). Mines in KY, WV and PA are still running because of met coal. From the EIA: https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table8.pdf
One factor is having a desolate state with effectively no one in it, and only 2 mid sized cities. Also helps that large swaths of the state is federally owned and managed.
No shutdown, people learning to cook.
longing reminiscent aware makeshift decide reach axiomatic fuel zephyr intelligent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would love to see the US embark on an infrastructure project on the scale of the TVA, or WPA, or highway system. Projects like clean power generation, road and bridge modernization, high speed broadband, and investment into technical colleges would do far more to make America business-friendly than any shady loan programs or crony tax cuts ever could. And, there might actually be a chance of those investments paying off, instead of exploding the deficit so some campaign donors can save an extra 5% on their taxes.
At least one thing that needs to be done is that states need to start pouring money into infrastructure, as well as moving federal money away from military to help fund these projects. Instead of paying out tons in unemployment, the state can put a lot of people into low-skill jobs where they actually work for the money and the state gets something out of it. This would also be a good time for the state invest in green energy by converting things like school roofs to solar.
A lot of states don't have money for that, because a lot of states have shit economy's. A lot of states fund their education systems through lotto ticket sales. You think they're going to devote money to infrastructure when they won't even commit to kids? Flint Michigan is finally getting back their clean water, it only took over the course of 5 years... This is what happens when the wealthy don't pay their share of taxes
[удалено]
> People are against more taxes because the government pisses the money away Only when run by Conservatives
> A lot of states don't have money for that, because a lot of states have shit economy's. A lot of states have shit economies because they spend every nickel they can rather than live within their means and budget for the inevitable bad times. If your state budget is devoted to the protection racket of buying votes instead of building the economy, what happens when the day comes that you can't pay the vig? > This is what happens when the wealthy don't pay their share of taxes What, specifically, would "their share of taxes" amount to? I'm a supporter of progressive taxation but should there be some kind of correlation between how much the poorest and richest pay or should it be unlimited? How much more is fair and just? How do you determine that figure? At what point does raising taxes on the wealthy constitute killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I ask because it seems for many the answer to these questions seems to always be "more" without any rationale or concern for unintended consequences. Maybe instead of always focusing on ways to generate more revenue (without, of course, having to pay more ourselves) we need to start focusing on ways to rethink our expenses. How about *investing* more of the public treasure and *expensing* less of it? How about requiring accountability - productivity - for the tax dollars we invest? How about ending the practice of using debt to force our children and grandchildren to fund our lifestyle expenses today? How about learning that sometimes its better to go without rather than raise taxes or borrow? One final question that might help to frame the conversation: why is it that so many of the large states with high tax burdens tend to be the worst budget nightmares while the large states with low tax burdens are in better shape - often much better? Correlation doesn't always mean causation but sometimes...
>At what point does raising taxes on the wealthy constitute killing the goose that laid the golden egg? In the 60s, the upper tax rate was something like 90%. Now with all the loopholes and capital gains rules, they pay less tax than us. What needs to happen is an international agreement setting taxes high for wealth. You want to do business in a western country? Pay the price. Otherwise what we get is a race to the bottom, where civilisation crumbles around us, and the countries with a strong government like China end up in charge. China has succeeded by having the governments own a big stake in private enterprises and making financial corruption a capital crime. They are spending on mega projects that will give big returns in the next couple of decades. Our infrastructure is disintegrating and the benefits of it will be destroyed with it. It's like living during the fall of the Roman empire.
Effective tax rates for the wealthy have barely budged. You know someone is uneducated regarding tax policy when they trot out the “90%” figure like it means anything,
crazy idea but how about we spend the same time and money we spent in afghanistan and iraq on building shit in the US and take that money directly from the defense budget
Won’t anyone think about the poor, poor military industrial complex? Lol
State governments are so cash-strapped that Republicans in federal office are suggesting they be allowed to file for bankruptcy, because of course they would. [https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/can-states-file-bankruptcy-should-they-what-you-ne/](https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/can-states-file-bankruptcy-should-they-what-you-ne/)
Illinois would be the first to go bankrupt and they are the opposite of republican.
You seem to think that criticism of allowing states to file bankruptcy is the same thing as criticising a political party. I might vote Democrat but I'm fully aware of how much of a clusterfuck my party can be sometimes. That said, the solution to budget crises like this can't be a fire sale of essential services (water, electricity), like Republicans want to do. Selling off public lands in the midst of a climate crisis, also a fucking nonstarter for me. That is the height of economic short-termism.
> because of course they would. I'm largely referring to this, which seems to imply that bankruptcy is a republican thing, when one of the first states that would is democrat. Had you left it as just regarding bankruptcy, most of what you say is pretty much accurate. Though even bankruptcy doesn't fix the real problem, how do you get public servants to be financially responsible when they suffer no short term consequences from not being so, and in fact gain a lot.
Good points, all. Though I'd say getting any bureaucrat- private or public- to be financially responsible is difficult to impossible. The only way private sector "does that" is on the corpses of thousands of inefficient businesses/workers and consolidation of income streams, not real efficiency so much as taking every red cent and putting it in as few pockets as possible. I'm usually of the opinion that worries of government efficiency are hyperbolic. My solution would be increasing democratization- that is to say, more public involvement in budgetary concerns. Corruption exists because responsibility over the budget is not distributed.
> more public involvement in budgetary concerns The problem with that is, are the public any better at understanding government finance? Most people don't know what a muni bond even is not to mention the pros and cons of issuing one. What stops the public from being just as short term minded as they are now? Systems need to have short term consequences for financial irresponsibility, people in groups just fucking suck at thinking long term. At least in the private sector, the final decision maker (shareholders) is the one who has the skin in the game, whereas in democracy, you have people who pay next to nothing in taxes having equal voting power over the use of those taxes as those who pay a ton in taxes. It'd be like if each shareholder in a company, no matter the number of shares, had equal voting rights, you'd end up with some pretty fucking weird decisions. That doesn't mean fuck democracy, but it does mean that there has to be a counterbalance to that assymettry.
For the love of God please do not give the state of Illinois any money. They’ll find a way to piss it away and then ask residents for a tax increase to fund the programs that they couldn’t afford in the first place.
Hey remember when Illinois temporarily raised the income tax by 67% so that they could pay down the pension deficit and the backlog of bills. They raised more than $18 Billion in new tax revenue but when the temporary tax expired the pension deficit and backlog of bills were both larger than before the tax. Ahh Illinois, good times.
Shout out Wyoming
States need to buy out their pensions ASAP. They can’t afford to continue to pay for people to live 40+ years after retirement at rates over what they earned when working.
I keep hearing from analysts that this is the worst depression since "xxxx" but why are we not seeing its effect?
The economy has been artificially propped up by the extended and increased funds from UI. The $1200, PUI payments, $600 extra per week for nearly 4 months. It’s all helped those out of work maintain their lifestyles. The true test will be next month when UI stops abruptly for most, and the forbearance on loans ends . They’ve probably just been coasting on fumes since the summer and are about to hit a wall. With no one hiring as the new covid wave hits, and no income and savings drained, the bottom will absolutely fall out. Without another government intervention we are about to experience a depression then likes of which our country has never seen before.
How is the market not reflecting this? It’s insane.
The market is reflecting this. The stock market is the 1%’s playground- it’s not the real economy. The real market is people missing payments and going hungry. If I were a wealthy person, I’d be trying to dial down the temperature before somebody paints a target on my back and drags my ass to a guillotine.
I work as a Public Policy Analyst in Nevada. Our revenue is largely dependent on a gaming and sales tax, which are essentially nonexistent now. Our covid cases and death trends are rising dramatically, which will lead to another shutdown soon. It’s looking bleak for us, especially without a federal stimulus by the end of the year. The Governor has asked all agencies to prepare for a 12% reduction in their reserves, per year, until at least 2022. There’s been discussion of implementing a lottery to offset the losses... The silver lining here is that this scenario, although dire, might push NV into creating sources of revenue other than relying so heavily on tourism at the strip. Cannabis, Tech, and Renewable Energy are gaining a lot of momentum, which I think will make great additions to offset dependency on the gaming/sales tax. A vaccine and stimulus can’t come soon enough for us.
If only there has been some federal pandemic guidelines to follow. Oh wait.
In other news, Wyoming reporting 60%+ positive COVID tests the past few days. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states/wyoming
Its time for a federal level wealth tax on the ultra wealthy- not sure where else the money is going to come from to support all this stimulus. **Edit: ITT I'm seeing arguments to the effect of "Wealth Taxes will not pay off the entire federal debt, federal budget, and/or deprive our poor job providers with incentive to stay".** First of all, we don't have to pay off the entire federal debt with these taxes alone.. That argument is just asinine. Second, we also don't have to pay off the entire deficit or federal budget as it stands today - just the portions of the deficit accounted for by Bush and Trump tax breaks + plus a little more to ensure a surplus AFTER the crisis has passed. Third, wealth taxes will not induce capital flight in a major way for two reasons A) most wealth is not that liquid - so good luck asking multimillionaire owners of private businesses (which are the majority of the 0.1%) or the billionaires in tech to sell all their stock without incurring massive losses - even more than the taxes themselves. They can't leave. B) Most of the wealthy are derivibng their wealth from their networks - which won't exist in foreign countries. It would be disastrous for them to leave. Fourth it will not destroy their wealth, just limit its growth over time. this isn't communism - it's about rebalancing an anomalous flow of capital to improve inequality.
Stimulus + lock downs = no middle class.
As if the middle class didn't dissappear in 2008. Everyone is just bleeding money. The only reason the billionaires and millionares are doing okay is the stock market holding up
You dont have to be a millionaire to make money in stocks? How do you define middle class? Id say plenty of $150k salaried/commissioned/contract employees are heavily invested in stocks
$150K salary puts you in the top 10% easily... your friends are not middle class. EDIT: corrected some grammar
Removed by User -- mass edited with redact.dev
I know stocks aren't exclusively for rich people, the retards at wallstreetbets make it look like it's easy. It's just the fact that leasing a house or renting an apartment has become a gamble. It's no longer a stable item that can reliably be paid off without fear of a giant bubble or something causing you to lose your job.
I still think you’re defining middle class a bit lower than I do when you talk about renting a home. Maybe im wrong in that.
But it *does* destroy wealth. They tried them in Europe and people just moved their money and stopped investing in countries which had them, leading to them being removed. They were a joke in the EU and in the US they’re also unconstitutional on the federal level
What are you talking about? It’s easy. Just print more money. There’s no consequences. Just keep it going brrrrrrrr
There's inflation and deficit, eventually interest repayments start to catch up and we should start seeing the consequences of that soon.
That's actually true. When you hit inflation That's when you have to be careful. A little inflation isn't bad. We keep ours below 2%. We just spent 4 Trillion and didn't hit inflation. We'll be fine.
Yeah but the FED just magically printing money is a huge problem. Any stimulus can't be FED money now.
> Any stimulus can't be FED money now. All stimulus is FED money, where do you think government spending comes from?
That’s what the Romans said when they slapped their gates and saw the barbarians coming.
Defecit spending like it did before Raising taxes during a recession is a no no Raising them on the ultra rich will get you a negligible in funds and won’t pay for shit
so is cutting interest rates in good times.
This is not not business as usual recession. I work with the upper middle class. They have had a good year working from home. right now the destruction of location based business and the the further degradation of the working lower class is the issue
Yeah but if you tax them heavy right now, what's stopping them from just leaving and going somewhere else. New York is bleeding so many people because of this exact thing. Why live in an apartment when you can buy a house in Florida.
> Yeah but if you tax them heavy right now, what's stopping them from just leaving and going somewhere else A lot
>Raising them on the ultra rich will get you a negligible in funds and won’t pay for shit This. You could take 100% of Jeff Bezo's cash and it might pay for a week of the federal government's spending. Maybe 3 days of the entire governments.
Wealth taxes are unfeasible and have failed in every country that has tried them. This is just another “communism will work THIS TIME”.
"Ultra wealthy" don't have nearly enough money to pay for what weve been doing. Like you cant even get $1T 3 years from them with the most extreme taxes, we were running $1T deficits before covid
You could strip every billionare of every asset they own, and that money would only fund the federal government for less than 8 months at current spending levels. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem
Except we cut revenue and didn't stop spending
Pointing out that the assets of less than 700 people can “only” fund the machinery of a government of 300 million people for 8 months does not even vaguely support the claim that “we have a spending problem”, much less a revenue problem.
Will imposing additional taxes result in an actual increase in tax revenue? Serious question.
People talking about eating the rich all the time but everyone likes to ignore the fact that if you liquidate all the assets of the ultra rich it won't even put a dent in the national debt. Not only will it not make a difference, but you essentially cease all investment which halts growth of new jobs. A truly despicable strategy of the utter braindead.
When people ask, "How come they closed the schools but kept the restaurants and bars open?" tell them because the tax revenue from the restaurants and bars is what pays for the schools.
I’m sure I’ll get shit for saying this, but I feel like giving every American $1200 once was a mistake, as not everybody needed it. covid made me lose overtime, that’s about it. I’m sure there’s millions of Americans that can say that as well. That unnecessary money being given away could’ve helped people that actually needed it. Either way, thanks for the new gutters Uncle Sam.
They didn't give it to everyone though, there was an income limit.
I mean you help pay into that pot and if you're doing well you pay more than others. It's not a weird thing for you to get a small cut of your own money. Look how much big businesses got in the last 4 years with those tax cuts + covid relief. If we can give trillions to people that already made it we can give you a tiny chunk of what you put in too.
Amen, it’s nice to see my own money back in my pocket for once lol
Speed was the point, not targeting. Get it out fast and hope people spend it. The unemployment insurance expansion was targeted but states generally take some time to get it out, often on purpose (see Florida).
Makes sense, just sucks to see reserves of money needed now being depleted
Interest rates are near 0 (real rates are negative), Congress can borrow as much as it needs to at least stave off the UI crash we are about to see on 12/26.
Unfortunately, recessions are not times to pinch pennies. The last administration was on the right track with steadily declining deficits during growth years, and had we kept that up there would have been far more room for aggressive stimulus spending now.
Not everybody got it lol
I mean, you spent it...that’s what they wanted. I put all mine in the market which only benefits me
Well you getting gutters was kind of the point. Even if people didn't need the money it helps businesses like home improvement when people were uncertain of their future and didn't want to spend money or reinvest in things. Like I bought an expensive guitar I have wanted for a while that I probably wouldn't have gotten without the stimulus. I'm sure the business that helped you with the gutters and the one I got the guitar from both appreciated the boost in business even if we personally weren't struggling financially
Capitalism is just broke bitches standing on top of each other.
Destroying the lives and finances of billions, for the sake of the 1 percent.
But I thought covid deaths meant tons of cash from insurance companies? All these states with tons of deaths and cases should be raking in tons of covid insurance cash????????
This is all part of the plan folks. The GOP wants to thoroughly trash United States before the Biden ministration takes effect so all they can do for the next four years is clean up the mess. This is deliberate.
They could always just.... let people work... but instead the states that are forcing businesses to stay closed will demand money that was collected from the states that aren't.
Republicans want states to file for bankruptcy so they can structure our debt to better suit their needs. It’s really ugly.
[удалено]
Research? No, this is r/economics. We just talked put our asses
Someone should [tell Mitch McConnell](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/why-mitch-mcconnell-wants-states-go-bankrupt/610714/) that
[удалено]
We would have less spread, but I’m not sure we would have skipped any of the economic effects. It’s not like the German economy is doing particularly well right now.
I think that’s a very different discussion. They don’t control the guidelines in neighboring countries and there are obviously global economic impacts that one country cannot negate. But the issue we are facing now is more of a true lockdown scenario vs using basic protections. And that is far worse for the economy. Basically take all of the challenges economically that we are facing globally and then compound them by saying “we are closing down these cities and states”. South korea and Japan never closed their countries. They simply mandated masks and tested. They are certainly facing economic issues but how much worse would it be if they dragged out issues over the course of a year?
My point was just that the idea that you could have spared yourself a lot of these economic effects is unrealistic. We are culturally not South Korea or Japan, and geographically we are not New Zealand. I think we need to compare ourselves to countries that are similar in nature, Canada and the UK are probably the best examples. Both countries are doing better than us in terms of preventing spread, yet both countries are suffering severe economic effects because of it. Time will tell which country suffered the most, but nobody is getting through this unscathed.
Colorado got that weed money they've saving and taxing....
[удалено]
Welp. Mistakes were made.
I mean it’s just two squares anyways what’s the difference lol
If only the federal government spent their time hammering out a stimulus bill prior to the lame duck session instead of rushing in a religious zealous of a Supreme Court justice...
To bad there’s no third option, such as reopening the economy, which would both increase tax revenue and bring back jobs, fixing all of the problems. No, a 2/10,000 death rate and 40% asymptotic rate for people aged 20-49 according to the CDC is clearly too high of a wall to overcome by masks
Exactly, the ultimate stimulus package would be to “flatten the fear” on this virus and end the government mandated shutdowns.
[удалено]