CBO - Ryan Plan will cost seniors $6000+/year

[Marietta Deac]

Yeah, that's what I said. So what can we do about that problem?

It is going to have to happen naturally. The only government intervention that might create jobs is some sort of permanent tax cut which we can't afford. People are already starting to leave existing jobs for new ones. Those companies that are overworking their current employees will get the message soon enough.

 

[PhDeac]

So we keep paying people to look for jobs that aren't there?

 

[Marietta Deac]

No, we have to look at those who have been unemployed over two years and see if there is any job that is available rather than one they want. Also if they are not truly looking for work, their benefits should be taken away from them. Some may have to go on public assistance if they are not employable.

 

[PhDeac]

I think it's simpler than that. Instead of paying people to look for jobs that aren't there, pay them to do work that needs to be done.

 

[Marietta Deac]

I would agree for work that truly needs to be done rather than make work. Do you have any examples?

 

[Liquid Karma]

I think it's simpler than that. Instead of paying people to look for jobs that aren't there, pay them to do work that needs to be done.

I agree. Let's make them work on infratructure upgrades in exchange for their "unemployment wages."

One caveat - they are not allowed to unionize.

 

[ChrisL68]

Tax revenues are at historic lows of GDP.

Marginal tax rates on the top earners are also at historic lows and we are experiencing historic wealth and income concentrations.

Is anybody surprised that the WSJ, which caters to that crowd, would claim that we don't have a tax problem and that we should actually lower taxes farther on that crowd?

Get real. We have a revenue and a spending problem in this country.

 

[PhDeac]

Can temps unionize? Honest question.

My idea of this plan is that people are hired for 6 months at a time part-time to maximize the effect and allow time to continue looking for work. They would have access to training as well but not paid. No benefits. Just a bridge.

 

[RJKarl]

Yeah, our President has done a helluva job on jobs...oh wait.

You're right he when the job we were LOSING 700,000/month with no end in sight to that number continuing to grow. Now we are creating 200,000 jobs per month.

Yep that sucks.

 

[RJKarl]

I have read some articles profiling the unemployed. It seems to be getting better but when the person is 59 years old and is looking for a middle management job, good luck. At a certain age, you just are not going to be able to land the job you want if you have a two year hole in your resume. Employers tend to opt for the younger applicant. Also, many of the unemployed are in construction. That is not going to come back any time soon.

Liek you said younger people are hired over the people in their 50s.

A friend of mine had worked in hotels for years. Then started a company that helped most of the msjor chains open new hotels or takeover properties from other compaies.

For about year he looked for a management position and couldn't find one. He then lowered his sights just get a job and applied for supervisory jobs as well as even working the frornt desk.

He had trained thosuands of people to do that job, but no one would hire because he was too old.

He even put in his cover letter that he was covered by his wife's insurance. This would save employers several hundred dollars per month in benefits costs. It didn't make any difference.

Just lowering your targets isn't close to being a panacea.

 

[DeacLaw05]

Tax revenues are at historic lows of GDP.

Marginal tax rates on the top earners are also at historic lows and we are experiencing historic wealth and income concentrations.

Is anybody surprised that the WSJ, which caters to that crowd, would claim that we don't have a tax problem and that we should actually lower taxes farther on that crowd?

Get real. We have a revenue and a spending problem in this country.

What the article shows is that there is no way out of this by taking half-steps and telling the country that we can get back on track just by taking more in taxes from the "rich." Not to mention that massive tax raises would crush the economy yet again.

The only way out of this is to slash spending at all levels, particularly with respect to entitlements.

 

[ChrisL68]

What the article shows is that there is no way out of this by taking half-steps and telling the country that we can get back on track just by taking more in taxes from the "rich." Not to mention that massive tax raises would crush the economy yet again.

The only way out of this is to slash spending at all levels, particularly with respect to entitlements.

Massive spending cuts will also crush the economy. Austerity is going to be painful either way.

This idea that we have to protect the top income earners while everybody else sacrifices, which are the main republican budget proposals right now, is just comical.

 

[RJKarl]

As Chris say s massive budget cuts equals massive layoffs. You can't have one without the other.

 

[WhatUTalkinBout Willis]

What loopholes would those be?

Tax-exempt bonds
Investments/Capital gains
Gift-Giving
"Charitable" Donations
Vacation Homes and Yachts

 

[Marietta Deac]

Can temps unionize? Honest question.

My idea of this plan is that people are hired for 6 months at a time part-time to maximize the effect and allow time to continue looking for work. They would have access to training as well but not paid. No benefits. Just a bridge.

Good idea but the government subcontracts much of its work out to the private sector which is not hiring.

 

[DeacLaw05]

Massive spending cuts will also crush the economy. Austerity is going to be painful either way.

This idea that we have to protect the top income earners while everybody else sacrifices, which are the main republican budget proposals right now, is just comical.

If there is going to be pain either way, lets experience it by drastically cutting spending in Washington and keeping tax rates low (or lower). The resulting economic growth should ease the pain considerably.

 

[ChrisL68]

If there is going to be pain either way, lets experience it by drastically cutting spending in Washington and keeping tax rates low (or lower). The resulting economic growth should ease the pain considerably.

It's pretty clear that the Republican solution is decreasing taxes as the answer for every problem isn't promoting economic growth for the country as a whole, but just for the top of the food chain.

We are currently in this experiment of continuously lowering taxes to promote economic growth, and the only thing that is really keeping the economy going is that we are subsidizing all of the people out of work while the economy continues to grow.

Nobody is really buying this trickle down nonsense any more.

 

[DeacLaw05]

It's pretty clear that the Republican solution is decreasing taxes as the answer for every problem isn't promoting economic growth for the country as a whole, but just for the top of the food chain.

Nobody is really buying this trickle down nonsense any more.

You're right. Jimmy Carter-style policies will make everyone equally miserable.

 

[ChrisL68]

You're right. Jimmy Carter-style policies will make everyone equally miserable.

That's nonsense. The marginal top tax rate under reagan was 50%.

Right now, we are living Ronald Reagan's dream economic policies, and the results aren't looking that great. A little moderation back towards reality in the center is in order.

Shared sacrifice is going to be required by all Americans to get us out of this mess.

 

[RJKarl]

If there is going to be pain either way, lets experience it by drastically cutting spending in Washington and keeping tax rates low (or lower). The resulting economic growth should ease the pain considerably.

False, we had the greatest economic boom in the past fifty years with pre-W tax rates.

Going back to those rates will not harm the economy unless we have gotten dumber in the past twelve years.