+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Paying for the jobs bill. (/showthread.php?tid=124829)
Paying for the jobs bill. - DaveS - 10-07-2011
I'm not against the Jobs Bill.
I do want it paid for.
However the numbers so far:
"... Now the exact figure is a 5.6% surtax, but for the purposes of simplicity, let’s just stick with 5%.
There are about 139,960,580 tax payers with positive AGI in 2010. Only 0.2% of taxpayers earn a million dollars or more, meaning that there about 279,921 households will be target with this wonderful new bash-the-rich surtax. Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion). With a 5% surtax on $1 million, that comes out to $50,000 for every household -- assuming they earn $1 million – and that’s not considering any tax breaks that might get in the way. Multiply the number of households earning a million (279,921) by the surtax ($50,000) and you get 13,996,050,000… so about $13 billion. Hardly a dent in the $447 billion price tag of Obama’s jobs bill.
So then what?
Well this is somehow supposed to grow our economy and create jobs, right? From the Tax Policy Foundation:
The millionaire tax would still affect about 35 percent of business income, and at least 140,000 taxpayers that report this business income, according to the most recent IRS data. In 2009 there were 141,035 millionaires with income from partnerships or S-corporations, 39,662 with income from sole proprietorships, and 1,840 with income from farms … the income from these businesses represent about one third of total income for millionaires (those with adjusted gross income of $1M or more).
So much for helping small businesses and creating jobs."
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - cbelt3 - 10-07-2011
To properly attribute, here is your LINK.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/may/12/another-tax-rich-idea/
(please. It's just polite. And the LAW. When you cut and paste, do the linky thing.)
You may all now begin an ad hominem slaughter of the basic math, which is conceptually logical and factual. I'll put in a few:
1- Well, some of that data came from that Tool of the Oppressors, the National Review. So it's lies.
2- Well more of that article came from the Pravda of the Corporate Overlords, National Business Review, so it's damn lies.
3- And more of that article came from a comedian. So it's silly stupid stuff.
Feel better ?
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - DaveS - 10-07-2011
cbelt3 wrote:
To properly attribute, here is your LINK.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/may/12/another-tax-rich-idea/
(please. It's just polite. And the LAW. When you cut and paste, do the linky thing.)
Thanks cbelt3 - my oversight, my fault exactly.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - Ted King - 10-07-2011
cbelt3 wrote:
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/07/good-not-good-enough-dear-ruler/
The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?
Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - DaveS - 10-07-2011
Ted King wrote:
[quote=cbelt3]
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/07/good-not-good-enough-dear-ruler/
The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?
Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Yes your right... so let's double the numbers... instead of 50K let's make it 100k. So instead of $13 billion year year it gives us $26 billion per year ... and over 10 years... $260 billion.
The Jobs Bill is $447 billion and we are going to collect $260 billion over 10 years... yup - paid for.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - Ted King - 10-07-2011
DaveS wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/07/good-not-good-enough-dear-ruler/
The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?
Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Yes your right... so let's double the numbers... instead of 50K let's make it 100k.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - DaveS - 10-07-2011
Ted King wrote:
[quote=DaveS]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/07/good-not-good-enough-dear-ruler/
The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?
Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Yes your right... so let's double the numbers... instead of 50K let's make it 100k.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
From the original numbers .. which as you note are to some degree factual, assumed AND estimates... "With a 5% surtax on $1 million, that comes out to $50,000 for every household".
So I used the 50k and doubled it to come up with the 100K "corrected" amount per taxpayer to be collected.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - voodoopenguin - 10-07-2011
So I will come in from across the water not knowing much about this tax but a little about math(s).
The tax is 5.6% but "for the purposes of simplicity" that's downgraded to 5%. Why not upgrade to 6% which is closer or why not leave it at 5.6%? Is it really that difficult?
The tax is for those earning over 1 million but again it is downgraded so that 1 million is assumed for all those liable to pay which is ridiculous. Why not 2 million or 5 million? On what basis is 1 million taken as being the figure to use?
The two assumptions above will both lower the true figure of tax, probably by quite some margin so the final figure assumed will be way off the amount needed to pay for the bill. Are those assumptions written to make a political point as they don't seem to make sense as a factual one?
I await being told that as a non US citizen I just don't understand the situation.
Paul
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - Ted King - 10-07-2011
DaveS wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=DaveS]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=cbelt3]
Now look at the (factual) numbers. Math has a funny way of being non-political. Yep. Makes sense.
First, just a note: I think the correct link to the quote is this:
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/oct/07/good-not-good-enough-dear-ruler/
The assumptions that are made about what numbers to crank through the math don't matter? How about this assumption from the OP: "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)." Nothing iffy about that, huh?
Also, the author pretends that the intent is to pay for the whole jobs bill with one year's increase in taxes on those making a million or more, but the taxes are intended to run for 10 years.
Yes your right... so let's double the numbers... instead of 50K let's make it 100k.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
From the original numbers .. which as you note are to some degree factual, assumed AND estimates... "With a 5% surtax on $1 million, that comes out to $50,000 for every household".
So I used the 50k and doubled it to come up with the 100K "corrected" amount per taxpayer to be collected.
Okay then, but notice how the author rounded: "13,996,050,000… so about $13 billion". Yeah, right. It doesn't matter, though, since the author didn't have many of the other numbers right either. As voodoopenguin pointed out, the proposed rate is 5.6%, not 5% (another example of the author's unusual notion of how and when to round?). Also, according to the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation the actual number of people earning $1 million or more is 330,000 - not the approx. 280,000 that the author states. Using the author's method of calculating (which isn't right for another reason that I'm curious to see if you catch) with these correct numbers - but still assuming the $1 million apiece income number - we get:
330,000 times $1,000,000 = $330,000,000,000 (total taxable income if everyone making a million dollars or over made just a million dollars).
$330,000,000 times 5.6% (0.056) = $18,480,000,000 (approx. $18.5 billion) per year.
$18.5 billion times ten years = $185 billion. That's well short of the $445 billion the jobs bill will cost, but it's 20 times more than the author implied in his article.
That is with the assumption that everyone who makes $1 million dollars or more are only making only exactly $1 million. If we do as you suggest and double that we get:
$185 billion times 2 (from your hypothetical to take care of the issue of people making more than $1 million a year) = $370 billion. Now that's getting right up there much closer to the $445 billion cost of the jobs bill.
When you tried to deal with the "making more than $1 million dollar issue, you just sort of pulled the "2" out of the air, much like the author pulled the "Let’s assume that all of these households earn pretty much around the $1 million mark (because let’s face it, there are a lot more people earning close to a million than close to a billion)" out of the air, too. How's about you get back with some numbers from a reliable source rather than pulling numbers out of the air in an effort to show that Ried and the Democrats in the Senate are wrong in their numbers.
That article is really a sloppy mess.
Re: Paying for the jobs bill. - OWC Jamie - 10-07-2011
Many Democrats have decided that supporting their unpopular president today is not worth losing their own jobs in November.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats are on board with the Jobs Bill. The current numbers don't matter.
The bill is being changed to get Democrats on board, which will of course make it totally incompatible to Republicans and when Democrats actually do allow the bill to be voted on it will certainly not pass muster and fail.
This is going around in circles for months. More finger pointing , more disenfranchised voters.
You want to do some math ?
The jobs bill is set to create an estimated 288, 000 jobs according to all these "independent economists" with a 447 billion dollar price tag it would be cheaper to just use dollar bills for confetti at the next Macy's Day parade.