So I guess it's fair to say that non-liberals spell the way they speak.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So I guess it's fair to say that non-liberals spell the way they speak.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Graphs plot numbers, facts, data. Graphs don't argue. Are you claiming the numbers false, or were manipulated in some way that reflects a bias, or Faux reality?Former NY Mayer Ed Koch died today. So the NYT whips-up an infographic about how the city has changed since the 1980s. They post a graphic about how inflation adjusted incomes have gone up in almost every orner of the city and argue that this is a bad thing because "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...and-today.html
Are you sure they weren't actually just trying to say that it's bad that the poorest got poorer?Former NY Mayer Ed Koch died today. So the NYT whips-up an infographic about how the city has changed since the 1980s. They post a graphic about how inflation adjusted incomes have gone up in almost every orner of the city and argue that this is a bad thing because "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...and-today.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
But they haven't provided such information...
Hope is the denial of reality
Graphs plot numbers, facts, data. Graphs don't argue. Are you claiming the numbers false, or were manipulated in some way that reflects a bias, or Faux reality?The graph seems to suggest that almost everyone got more prosperous in real-dollar terms. At least based on the graph, maybe 3-5 neighborhoods out of 100 seem to have lost ground.
I'm saying it's a faux reality to bring up this trope about "the rich became richer and the poor, poorer" when virtually everyone is richer according to the data being presented. Clearly most of the poor have become richer, which is a very good thing.
Though money issues are really fuzzy with NYTimes reporters because an increasingly high proportion of them are trust fund kids.
I find their real estate stories amusing. Their "average" people looking for a home usually pay about $3k a month and pay double that to a broker (and they all have a broker!).
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, the brokers are the ones who pitch those ridiculous stories to the NYT in the first place.
Strong yen hurt Japan competitiveness. So it was better for auto makers to operate in US. Now that US tries to keep dollar desirable enough so people buy US bonds, Brazil seems a better place. Tax laws, labor laws and others determine only a small portion of costs. Currency devaluation devaluates the whole economy, making it more competitive. The problem of having a currency that is desirable to buy bonds, is that it makes other nations more competitive. It is not a matter of trade wars, or socialism, it is a matter of plain monetary policy.
Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/re...eative.html?hp
Another NY Times piece directed at the average Joe.
Hope is the denial of reality
NYC has a distinct real estate market that's not like any other. Just because NYT posts an article aimed at local Joes doesn't mean it's faux economics. All real estate is local.
Yeah, because all real estate in NYC starts at $2m. There is housing outside of midtown Manhattan. And it reflects a complete lack of context by the NY Times staff. For them, the world starts and ends in midtown. It does so for both real estate and the economy.
Hope is the denial of reality
There are also places called Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. (But not the Bronx)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Why do you say that? I peruse the NYT real estate section routinely....they include the "region" as well as the "city" and its boros, as well as international RE. Some of their housing articles are more commonly found in other sections of the paper, like Business or Finance, or Economy. That's where the stories about Average Joe (average income) New Yorkers are put into context, and include New Jersey and Connecticut commuters/homeowners/renters.
NYT Real Estate section appeals to a broad range of national and international investors, including brokers, agents, attorneys. What's faux about that, in a global investor economy?
The stories that are linked to on the front page are always about midtown. That seems to be what their main writers cover.
Hope is the denial of reality
You judge a news organization by its front page headline stories?
I'm judging an organization by the stories that the organization thinks are important (why else put them on the front page?).
Hope is the denial of reality
It's the New York Times, after all.
NYC is more than just Manhattan.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Sure, and the NYT real estate section is more expansive than Dread or Loki portray.
I love visiting the NYT for its RE articles and slide shows. They're definitely not limited to Manhattan, NYC, New York state, or even the US.
Maybe people only read the NYT in that area
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Bingo! Folks in NYC can use the NYT as a local real estate news source, but that doesn't mean the NYT only writes for New Yorkers. They are, after all, a global news source.Maybe people only read the NYT in that area
Related anecdote: I've been hunting for my ideal retirement spot by climate and economy. Zillow is okay as a data-collector, but NYT and its sponsors are even better. I used to routinely skip ads from Sotheby's, because I thought they were strictly a million dollar plus intermediary. I was wrong.
They don't. I doubt Manhattan, with under a quarter of NYC's population, is responsible for a majority of its sales.Maybe people only read the NYT in that area
Hope is the denial of reality
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/bu...s.html?hp&_r=0 I wonder if the NY Times wants to point out that the "record cuts" are taking place after record increases in spending.
Hope is the denial of reality
Government purchases and investments expand the nation’s economy, just as private sector transactions do, while benefit programs move money from one group of people to another without directly expanding economic activity.What fucking nonsense. In one sentence, he says that entitlement spending takes money from productive parts of the economy and then says that all non-entitlement government spending (no matter how wasteful) expands the economy, with the implication that the money doesn't come from productive parts of the economy.
In this update from the Times editorial page, the trust-fund-addled Times editorial page turns its gaze upon the actuarial crisis of Social Security. The Times says: "A sensible change is to raise the payroll tax rate, currently 6.2 percent for both workers and employers. The rate has not been raised since 1990."
This argument implies that it's reasonable to expect ever-increasing payroll taxes to cover Social Security. This seems entirely not reasonable.
When Social Security started, the payroll tax was 1%. It's now 12.4% when you include the employer contribution or the self-employed rate (source: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/oasdiRates.html).
So, over the past few decades the cost of Social Security has increased 1200% for every taxpayer. And yet the program is still only "solvent" for another few decades.
How high to payroll taxes have to be before the Times recognizes that it is madness to increase payroll taxes ever-higher, especially given how regressive payroll taxes are for the working poor?
The responsible course of action is to slow-down the growth of Social Security benefits. Ideally, we could also cut payroll taxes and leave more money in people's pockets so that they can save more. Yet the Times just wants to keep increasing payroll taxes indefinitely; it's not working.
March 30, 2013
Social Security, Present and Future
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.
In last year’s “fiscal cliff” debate, President Obama offered to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for Social Security benefits, a spending cut favored by Republicans and scorned by Democrats. Republicans rejected the offer because Mr. Obama wanted tax increases in exchange, while Democrats said it would be too harmful. More recently, Senate Democrats did not include Social Security reforms in their budget and specifically rejected a COLA cut. The House Republican budget also steered clear of explicit cuts to Social Security, a move partly aimed at isolating Mr. Obama.
The question now is whether Mr. Obama will again propose to cut the COLA when he unveils his budget next week. We think he should not do so. The president might want to seem like he is willing to compromise by renewing his call for a COLA cut. But Republicans already spurned his offer and are unlikely to take him up on it now. They are more likely to paint him as a foe of Social Security, which would be reinforced by Democrats’ opposition to the cut.
Even if Mr. Obama avoided those pitfalls, a COLA cut is a bad idea, as we will explain in this editorial. It also is a distraction from the real problems of Social Security.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL SECURITY? The answer is a long-term shortfall. Social Security plans for solvency over 75 years, but because of demographic pressures and the weak economy, it is currently solvent only until 2033. After that, without reforms, it would pay about 75 percent of promised benefits.
Meanwhile, the nation is having a retirement crisis. Even before the recession, people had not saved enough to make up for the loss of traditional pensions. The downturn and slow recovery have made things worse. Less than half of households ages 55 to 64 have retirement savings, and of those, half have less than $120,000. Many near-retirees also have lost home equity or a job.
All that will leave most retirees heavily reliant on Social Security, which currently pays a modest benefit, on average, of $1,265 a month. Already, the majority of retirees — with annual incomes up to $32,600 — get two-thirds to all of their income from Social Security.
Even at higher incomes, up to $57,960, Social Security is the single biggest source, accounting for almost half. Only the top fifth of seniors, with incomes above $57,960, do not rely on Social Security as their largest source of income; most of them are still working.
Going forward, there is no escaping the reality that Social Security will be more vital than ever. To save it, we need consensus on direction and principles, among Democrats and across the aisle, along these lines:
SHOULD IT BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION? This is part of a larger question about whether any deficit reduction is appropriate when the economy is weak and unemployment high. The short answer to both questions is no. But as long as the deficit occupies center stage, the best approach would be for politicians to debate, and even agree, on spending cuts and tax increases to take effect as the economy strengthens.
Social Security reforms should be decided separately because the program is not driving the deficit. That distinction goes to chronic revenue shortfalls and rising health costs that propel spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security did not cause today’s deficits, because the payroll taxes that support it have been more than adequate; and it will not contribute to future debt, because it is barred from spending more than it takes in.
The reason Social Security is wrapped up in the political budget debate is that government deficit projections assume Social Security will always pay promised benefits in full, even though the system is expected to run short in 20 years. That shortfall is reflected in deficit projections, so reducing it would improve the budget outlook.
The answer is to address Social Security’s problems, not to conflate reforms with the broader deficit reduction efforts.
HOW SHOULD SOCIAL SECURITY BE REFORMED? The drive to cut the COLA is based on the premise that the inflation gauge used to compute the adjustment overstates the rising cost of living. That is a flawed premise. A good case can be made that the gauge is an inaccurate way to track inflation for working-age people, but there is no empirical evidence that it overstates inflation among retirees, who tend to spend more on health care and other necessities for which there are few, if any, cheaper substitutes.
To ensure that the system is paying proper COLAs, Congress should instruct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a statistically rigorous index of inflation among retirees. Until that is done, cutting the COLA on grounds that it is too large would be unjustified and disingenuous.
In the meantime, the debate over reforming Social Security will come down to tax increases versus benefit cuts. With retirements at risk, reducing benefits is dangerous, though trimming benefits for upper-income recipients, who live longer and draw larger benefits, could close about 10 percent of the system’s long-term funding gap.
Another overdue reform, which would close about a third of the gap, is to raise the level of wages subject to Social Security payroll tax to about $200,000 from the current $113,700. That would bring the taxable wage base in line with rising incomes among top earners.
A sensible change is to raise the payroll tax rate, currently 6.2 percent for both workers and employers. The rate has not been raised since 1990. A one percentage point increase could be phased in over 20 years and still raise enough revenue to close about half of the funding gap.
•
It is imperative that the frenzy that passes these days for deficit debate not engulf Social Security. There are rational and acceptable fixes to the program that could preserve it for generations to come, if political will can be found to enact them.
Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/op...nd-future.html
I wonder if there's any problem the NY Times doesn't think we can get out of by raising taxes.
Hope is the denial of reality
Normally not-totally-insane columnist Joe Nocera brings-up issue of taxes making it difficult to re-patriate earnings, then complains that earnings aren't being re-patriated. Then goes on to say that inversions make it easier to use that cash, as a justification for why inversions don't have any real incentives behind them. What the fuck is this.
Inversion Delusion
SEPT. 8, 2014
Joe Nocera
On Monday, the Tax Policy Center in Washington held a panel discussion on the subject of “corporate inversions” — the practice of taking over a small company in someplace like Ireland or the Netherlands, and then using that takeover to “relocate” to the foreign country for tax reasons. One of the panelists was John Samuels, the chief tax lawyer for General Electric.
Samuels started by saying that even the most junior tax lawyers know that, when structuring a cross-border merger, “you should do whatever you can, whatever’s possible, to make sure the ultimate parent or acquirer is a foreign company, not a U.S. company, to avoid having the entire worldwide income caught up in the U.S. tax net.” He went on: “Virtually every major developed country in the world has dramatically reformed its tax system to make it more business-friendly.” He cited Britain as an example. “The U.K. recently abandoned its worldwide system for a territorial system [and] reduced its corporate tax rate to 21 percent.” Quoting the exchequer secretary to the Treasury, he added, Britain “wants to send out the signal loud and clear that Britain is open for business.”
The corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, which is the highest in the industrialized world. And, unlike most other countries, it taxes a company’s worldwide earnings, at that same high rate, once they are repatriated into the United States. (That is what Samuels meant by a “worldwide system.”)
So, at first glance, Samuels’s analysis would seem to make sense: the disparity of our uncompetitive corporate tax rate versus their business-friendly rates must be driving the current mania for inversions. Many other corporate executives have made the same argument. Just a few months ago, Heather Bresch, the chief executive of Mylan, a $7 billion generic drug company, announced that her company would be doing an inversion that would place its new corporate address in the Netherlands, where the tax rate is 25 percent. She complained that the American corporate tax rate needed to become “more competitive.”
But upon closer inspection, this argument turns out to be mainly hogwash. As Edward D. Kleinbard put it in a recent report, “ ‘Competitiveness’ has nothing to do with it.”
Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California, has emerged as one of the leading critics of inversions. In his view, it isn’t so much that the corporate tax code is too tough or the rate is too high; rather, he says, companies are taking advantage of loopholes in the code that make inversions almost irresistible for corporate executives. As another critic, Kimberly Clausing of Reed College, wrote in a recent paper: “Both the high U.S. tax rate and the worldwide system of taxation have more bark than bite.”
For starters, American multinationals, with their high-powered tax departments, rarely pay 35 percent or anything close to it. And those earnings that are supposed to get taxed upon repatriation? Needless to say, they never get repatriated; by some estimates, $2 trillion in earnings by American multinationals reside, untaxed, outside the country.
Indeed, according to Kleinbard and other critics, gaining access to those earnings is a benefit of inversion. Clausing describes the tactic like this: Foreign affiliates of the American company lend money to the new foreign parent, skipping over the U.S. company and thus avoiding the repatriation tax. Kleinbard calls these “hopscotch” transactions.
Then there is something called “earnings stripping,” which inversion also makes possible. This involves using loans between the foreign “owner” and the American “affiliate” to shift income out of the United States. According to Clausing, Walgreens, which was planning an inversion but pulled back after a public outcry, would have saved “over $780 million in taxes in one year alone.”
For years, executives have called for an overhaul of the corporate tax system; recently, as per Samuels and Bresch, inversions have become a part of the argument. But, in truth, curbing inversions shouldn’t have to wait for wholesale reform. In 2004, George W. Bush pushed through a law that temporarily stopped what was then a flood of inversions.
It can be done again. Laws can be written that, for instance, insist that the foreign targets be much larger companies — thus trying to ensure that the deals are done for strategic reasons rather than solely for tax reasons. And the loopholes that allow for earnings stripping and hopscotching can be closed.
Before that panel discussion on Monday, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew made a speech in which he denounced inversions and essentially pleaded with Congress to take action. He also hinted that the administration might take regulatory action on its own, though there is disagreement among the experts whether regulation alone could stop inversions.
In either case, they need to be stopped. They aren’t just corrosive to the country’s tax base; they are corrosive, in a larger sense, to the country. Thanks to our Swiss cheese of a tax code, multinational companies already have a splendid little deal. They shouldn’t get to sweeten it even more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/op...-delusion.html
I might be wrong, because it isn't quite that clearly written, but I think your analysis is wrong (at least the first half), I think he brings up inversion as a way to avoid the high world-wide taxes which make it difficult to repatriate earnings, but then mentions in the bold part that this isn't really needed because without inversion you can still avoid that (the bolded bit).Normally not-totally-insane columnist Joe Nocera brings-up issue of taxes making it difficult to re-patriate earnings, then complains that earnings aren't being re-patriated. Then goes on to say that inversions make it easier to use that cash, as a justification for why inversions don't have any real incentives behind them. What the fuck is this.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Dread, you can only use the NYT as a scapegoat for so long.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
