Politics

[autry_denson]

One problem...what about the people who filed one year, and did not file at all the next in that state.

They have been left out of the study...the study relied soley on those who up and decided to move in the middle of the year and had a partial...

uhm...is it beyond the realm of possibility a reasonable percentage of people who make a million bucks would, say, PLAN their exodus, and for logistical ease show a clean break...ie, I would like to know who made a million bucks who did not show up at all the following year in addition to mid year returns...this seems like a consideration...yes?

Classic internet commenter response, I love it:

- implies that the fatal flaw in the Stanford professor's paper is glaringly obvious;
- clearly did not read the paper b/c didn't see that the issue is discussed in a very transparent way
- shows complete, 100% misunderstanding of the research combined with all of the arrogance of a full professor dismissing an undergrad's paper
- confuses the person who posted the link to the paper with the person who wrote the paper

Well done, you nailed the internet commenter guy critique.

(to take seriously the critique for a second: people who file for a full year and then disappear are, by and large, people who died. a much smaller # are people who moved, so the # of people who file for the full year and then disappear completely is a tiny share of the total sample. for this to affect results, these individuals would have to behave entirely differently from everyone else - yet the authors say clearly that they are trying to get data that will allow them to distinguish the deceased from movers in order to make sure the results aren't affected. A quick read would have revealed all of this to you, but that's not internet commenter's style I realize).

 

[Ndaccountant]

Classic internet commenter response, I love it:

- implies that the fatal flaw in the Stanford professor's paper is glaringly obvious;
- clearly did not read the paper b/c didn't see that the issue is discussed in a very transparent way
- shows complete, 100% misunderstanding of the research combined with all of the arrogance of a full professor dismissing an undergrad's paper
- confuses the person who posted the link to the paper with the person who wrote the paper

Well done, you nailed the internet commenter guy critique.

(to take seriously the critique for a second: people who file for a full year and then disappear are, by and large, people who died. a much smaller # are people who moved, so the # of people who file for the full year and then disappear completely is a tiny share of the total sample. for this to affect results, these individuals would have to behave entirely differently from everyone else - yet the authors say clearly that they are trying to get data that will allow them to distinguish the deceased from movers in order to make sure the results aren't affected. A quick read would have revealed all of this to you, but that's not internet commenter's style I realize).

I did not read the whole thing, I don't really have the time. Do they address this or is this not considered?

Looking for results during a time period that was not experiencing rapid wealth increases? The late 90's and mid 2000's were generally kind to those with wealth. So, it would be much easier to stomach a 1% increase when all of your asset classes are appreciating rapidly. Comparing the results to a different time period could strengthen or weaken the argument.

Next, looking at the full tax burden of individuals? Again, timing may be everything. Incrementally, 1% on a lower rate might not make a huge dent, but after all other tax increases, the 1% makes a bigger dent. In today's terms, with the increased taxes at the federal level, 1% additional at the state level is a big deal.

 

[autry_denson]

I did not read the whole thing, I don't really have the time. Do they address this or is this not considered?

Looking for results during a time period that was not experiencing rapid wealth increases? The late 90's and mid 2000's were generally kind to those with wealth. So, it would be much easier to stomach a 1% increase when all of your asset classes are appreciating rapidly. Comparing the results to a different time period could strengthen or weaken the argument.

Next, looking at the full tax burden of individuals? Again, timing may be everything. Incrementally, 1% on a lower rate might not make a huge dent, but after all other tax increases, the 1% makes a bigger dent. In today's terms, with the increased taxes at the federal level, 1% additional at the state level is a big deal.

wouldn't expect anyone to read. but if one is planning on sarcastically dismissing the research, I might expect that person to take a quick read.

the paper looks at the effect of the 'millionaire tax' alone, not full tax burden. this is an example of some of the best empirical research currently being conducted, which finds ways to exploit very creative research designs in order to answer very narrow research questions well, building up a base of solid empirical evidence that can be used to answer bigger, broader questions. this paper is an example of that approach - it uses a rigorous design that gives a precise answer to a very narrow question. to do this the analysis exploits the timing of the tax passage based on the years before and after the tax was implemented - it's not generalizable to other periods or even other states (although similar evidence from other states is showing the same findings).

in other words, it doesn't tell us whether taxes ever affect mobility, using shaky methods to give a speculative answer. it tells us whether this tax affected mobility of the target population, and gives a credible and precise answer. we would be much better off if policy were based on this type of evidence than on speculative ideas that are biased by ideological background.

 

[phgreek]

Classic internet commenter response, I love it:

- implies that the fatal flaw in the Stanford professor's paper is glaringly obvious;
- clearly did not read the paper b/c didn't see that the issue is discussed in a very transparent way
- shows complete, 100% misunderstanding of the research combined with all of the arrogance of a full professor dismissing an undergrad's paper
- confuses the person who posted the link to the paper with the person who wrote the paper

Well done, you nailed the internet commenter guy critique.

(to take seriously the critique for a second: people who file for a full year and then disappear are, by and large, people who died. a much smaller # are people who moved, so the # of people who file for the full year and then disappear completely is a tiny share of the total sample. for this to affect results, these individuals would have to behave entirely differently from everyone else - yet the authors say clearly that they are trying to get data that will allow them to distinguish the deceased from movers in order to make sure the results aren't affected. A quick read would have revealed all of this to you, but that's not internet commenter's style I realize).

Read the executive summary...It stated this:

"This study tracks migration by, in essence, identifying taxpayers who file a California
full-year resident tax return in one year and file a part-year / nonresident return in an adjacent year. We calculate the rates of in-migration and out-migration as a percentage of population for different income groups over the period 1994 – 2007. We then compare migration patterns before and after two recent California tax law changes. "

I also read the six conclusions...

of the 44 pages I read 3...


Yes I was sarcastic...should have read the entire 44 pages before posting...and should not have relied on the executive summary to accurately depict the considerations...

but no, I won't just assume because an analysis comes from academia that it is not in some way contrived for a purpose...I rarely assume omissions are ever due to lack of intellect, but rather by design...even peer reviewed stuff often total BS...

Also, criticisms are never pointed at the guy who brings the source...come on now.

I think you are a little sensitive dude...

 

[autry_denson]

Read the executive summary...It stated this:

"This study tracks migration by, in essence, identifying taxpayers who file a California
full-year resident tax return in one year and file a part-year / nonresident return in an adjacent year. We calculate the rates of in-migration and out-migration as a percentage of population for different income groups over the period 1994 – 2007. We then compare migration patterns before and after two recent California tax law changes. "

I also read the six conclusions...

of the 44 pages I read 3...


Yes I was sarcastic...should have read the entire 44 pages before posting...and should not have relied on the executive summary to accurately depict the considerations...

but no, I won't just assume because an analysis comes from academia that it is not in some way contrived for a purpose...I rarely assume omissions are ever due to lack of intellect, but rather by design...even peer reviewed stuff often total BS...

Also, criticisms are never pointed at the guy who brings the source...come on now.

I think you are a little sensitive dude...

Fair enough. Here's my point: if you had made your comment without the sarcasm and dismissive tone, it could have been productive. Again, I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing, but I find it hard to deal with that tone when one clearly hasn't bothered to find out if the critique is addressed or not.

I'm guilty of the antagonistic/dismissive tone as well sometimes, it's a disease of the internet I think. But would be nice to see a discussion of really good research without the usual sarcasm.

 

[phgreek]

Fair enough. Here's my point: if you had made your comment without the sarcasm and dismissive tone, it could have been productive. Again, I don't expect anyone to read the whole thing, but I find it hard to deal with that tone when one clearly hasn't bothered to find out if the critique is addressed or not.

I'm guilty of the antagonistic/dismissive tone as well sometimes, it's a disease of the internet I think. But would be nice to see a discussion of really good research without the usual sarcasm.

Cool...I have a model for executive summaries, and this did no follow...If an obvious consideration is not covered in the ES, I would never assume I'd find it later. I'm not sure I'll change my expectations of the kinds of things you do in an executive summary...but I will refrain from the sarcasm when making critiques based on them...

Seriously if I derailed this I apologize...not cool.

 

[Ndaccountant]

wouldn't expect anyone to read. but if one is planning on sarcastically dismissing the research, I might expect that person to take a quick read.

the paper looks at the effect of the 'millionaire tax' alone, not full tax burden. this is an example of some of the best empirical research currently being conducted, which finds ways to exploit very creative research designs in order to answer very narrow research questions well, building up a base of solid empirical evidence that can be used to answer bigger, broader questions. this paper is an example of that approach - it uses a rigorous design that gives a precise answer to a very narrow question. to do this the analysis exploits the timing of the tax passage based on the years before and after the tax was implemented - it's not generalizable to other periods or even other states (although similar evidence from other states is showing the same findings).

in other words, it doesn't tell us whether taxes ever affect mobility, using shaky methods to give a speculative answer. it tells us whether this tax affected mobility of the target population, and gives a credible and precise answer. we would be much better off if policy were based on this type of evidence than on speculative ideas that are biased by ideological background.

Studies like this are important, but are too often abused by talking heads that wish to use said report to further their personal agenda. But they completely ignore the fact that the study could have been/was conducted over a time period that really isn't analogous to today.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Nobody's policies did that. ITS ALWAYS BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. OUR POPULATION HAS ALWAYS FLEXED WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE.

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA?

By all means please feel free to stay in Ohio, yes it is a lot cheaper to live there.

I guess the yelling and screaming is the result of liberals denying their own policies are crushing the people they claim to "fight for", the middle class.

California has much to offer in terms of higher education, food, wine, history, and sports. But to be a middle class family trying to make it in CA is an increasingly uphill battle, hence the exodus within the past few years.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Lmao! Yeah California is doomed. You crack me up.

I guess you haven't seen the state's current dent and unfunded liabilities.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

sounds great indeed, unless you want your children to be educated, you lose your job, or your house catches on fire.

Just so we have this straight: if you live in Texas your kids will be illiterate, you get no unemployment benefits, and there is no fire department. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I guess you haven't seen the state's current dent and unfunded liabilities.

debt

 

[BobD]

24 hours.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Today I had three different people tell me they had no idea what's going on and they don't pay attention to the news. <---That's our biggest problem.

 

[BobD]

Ted Cruz will never be President.

 

[GoIrish41]

24 hours.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Today I had three different people tell me they had no idea what's going on and they don't pay attention to the news. <---That's our biggest problem.

today we find out just how crazy these guys are

 

[BobD]

today we find out just how crazy these guys are

Yep. They'll probably spend the day, like us, debating why it's so expensive to live in California and so cheap to live in a wasteland called Texas.....cause that's what really matters. California is doomed ya know?

 

[phgreek]

Yep. They'll probably spend the day debating why it's so expensive to live in California and so cheap to live in a wasteland called Texas.....cause that's what really matters. California is doomed ya know?

HEY...I resemble that remark...

If they fail to get it done today...we won't default...but maybe our rating will tank another increment...and we deserve that. Maybe then the interest on borrowed Money won't be so "attractive", and maybe that will force the ceiling we never blow past...guy can hope anyway.

 

[BobD]

HEY...I resemble that remark...

If they fail to get it done today...we won't default...but maybe our rating will tank another increment...and we deserve that. Maybe then the interest on borrowed Money won't be so "attractive", and maybe that will force the ceiling we never blow past...guy can hope anyway.

They need to get it done. Perception counts and we Americans are looking really bad right now. I don't think people realize that not just our citizens, but THE WORLD relies on us. If we keep this up, they're going to start looking for someone else.

 

[GoIrish41]

HEY...I resemble that remark...

If they fail to get it done today...we won't default...but maybe our rating will tank another increment...and we deserve that. Maybe then the interest on borrowed Money won't be so "attractive", and maybe that will force the ceiling we never blow past...guy can hope anyway.

It isn't the debt ceiling that makes Congress spend the money. If they want to control spending, they should control spending through a budget. The debt ceiling just allows us to pay the bills we've already committed to.

 

[wizards8507]

HEY...I resemble that remark...

If they fail to get it done today...we won't default...but maybe our rating will tank another increment...and we deserve that. Maybe then the interest on borrowed Money won't be so "attractive", and maybe that will force the ceiling we never blow past...guy can hope anyway.

Yes sir. Economics 101. Artificially low interest rates create a "free lunch" mentality because the cost to borrow does not accurately reflect risk. Rates are being kept down by the Federal Reserve and by an overappraisal of the nation's creditworthiness. Everyone (individuals, businesses, and governments) are leveraging themselves up to the eyeballs in "free" debt, but the risk involved will bite everyone in the *** before too long. This happened five years ago and we still haven't learned.

Simple example: Maybe people would be less likely to buy homes they can't afford if the interest rate on a 30-year fixed was 10%.

 

[wizards8507]

It isn't the debt ceiling that makes Congress spend the money. If they want to control spending, they should control spending through a budget.

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009, and not a single budget has even been brought to the Senate floor for consideration in a year. This has been fact-checked up and down and it's true.

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee...rker-says-senate-has-not-passed-budget-more-/

The debt ceiling just allows us to pay the bills we've already committed to.

1. It's "the bills to which we've already committed."

2. If we've "already committed to the bills," then there's no need to "raise the ceiling." "Raising the ceiling" means more debt, i.e. new debt, i.e. more spending. If we were just talking about existing obligations, the debt would be steady, i.e. flat, i.e. not growing.

3. There will be NO default. It's a myth, plain and simple. Interest on the debt is $420 billion per year. Annual tax revenues are are $2.3 trillion. The worst we'd see is a more significant government shutdown that the one we have right now. Something like 80% of the government is still up and running.

The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes

 

[phgreek]

It isn't the debt ceiling that makes Congress spend the money. If they want to control spending, they should control spending through a budget. The debt ceiling just allows us to pay the bills we've already committed to.

...Budget...would be nice.

yes and no on the ceiling...to me the process of continually raising the limit has consequences on how people view budgetary rigor...

 

[GoIrish41]

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009, and not a single budget has even been brought to the Senate floor for consideration in a year. This has been fact-checked up and down and it's true.

PolitiFact Tennessee | Bob Corker says Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years



1. It's "the bills to which we've already committed."

2. If we've "already committed to the bills," then there's no need to "raise the ceiling." "Raising the ceiling" means more debt, i.e. new debt, i.e. more spending. If we were just talking about existing obligations, the debt would be steady, i.e. flat, i.e. not growing.
3. There will be NO default. It's a myth, plain and simple. Interest on the debt is $420 billion per year. Annual tax revenues are are $2.3 trillion. The worst we'd see is a more significant government shutdown that the one we have right now. Something like 80% of the government is still up and running.

The U.S. Debt Ceiling Fallacy: Agreement Or Not, There Will Be No Default - Forbes

1. Thanks for the grammar lesson.

2. No, it means paying the bills. You are incorrect. Congress decides what they are going to fund and the debt ceiling rises to meet their commitments. United States debt ceiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Virtually every economist in the world says it means default.

Oh, and the Senate passed a budget in March. A group of Republican senators blocked efforts to begin budget negotiations with the House.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yep. They'll probably spend the day, like us, debating why it's so expensive to live in California and so cheap to live in a wasteland called Texas.....cause that's what really matters. California is doomed ya know?

You can giggle all you want. Numbers don't lie. Texas is crushing California, California middle class families are leaving for nearby states with lower cost of living and lower taxes. Losing those tax revenues (household and businesses) only sinks CA a little quicker with its debt and unfunded liabilities.

 

[DSully1995]

1. Thanks for the grammar lesson.

2. No, it means paying the bills. You are incorrect. Congress decides what they are going to fund and the debt ceiling rises to meet their commitments. United States debt ceiling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Virtually every economist in the world says it means default.

Oh, and the Senate passed a budget in March. A group of Republican senators blocked efforts to begin budget negotiations with the House.

Distinction without a difference? If you dont raise the debt ceiling you wont be able to borrow more and will need to curtail spending.

interest payments are like 5% of what you take in for tax revenue, it will only be default if they choose to default, by prioritizing the other spending

 

[GoIrish41]

Distinction without a difference? If you dont raise the debt ceiling you wont be able to borrow more and will need to curtail spending.

interest payments are like 5% of what you take in for tax revenue, it will only be default if they choose to default, by prioritizing the other spending

The time to draw the line of responsibility isn't after the spending takes place. Aren't we operating on the CR that the Republicans wanted last time around? If memory serves Boener bragged following negotiations that he was extremely happy and he "got 98% of what he wanted." The GOP is trying to dine and dash on the federal bill.

The percentage of the federal debt that goes to interest in 2012 is 6 percent. However, they are not the only obligations required.

19% of the budget went to Defense
22% to social Security
21% to major health programs
12% to safety net programs
7% to federal retirees and veterans
3% to transportation infrastructure
2% to education
2% to science and medical research
1% to non-security international
5% to everything else

What are we going to prioritize? Stop paying soldiers? Stop paying Social Security benefits? Gutting healthcare programs like Medicare or Medicade? Pulling away the safety net? Stopping veterans benefits? Any or all of those things would have a huge negative economic impact for not only this country but for the entire world.

If the answer is to curtail spending, the time to do that is in the budgeting process. And after many months of complaining that there was no budget passed in the Senate, the GOP kept the passed bill in March from heading to conference. THAT is when these negotiations should have happened -- not at the 11th hour when the Tea Party is holding a gun to the head of the economy. This is insanity. We are debating something that has never been considered in the history of our nation and what might or might not happen. We should never be in the position to be having this debate.

 

[GoIrish41]

Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default - CNN.com

 

[phgreek]

The time to draw the line of responsibility isn't after the spending takes place. Aren't we operating on the CR that the Republicans wanted last time around? If memory serves Boener bragged following negotiations that he was extremely happy and he "got 98% of what he wanted." The GOP is trying to dine and dash on the federal bill.

The percentage of the federal debt that goes to interest in 2012 is 6 percent. However, they are not the only obligations required.

19% of the budget went to Defense
22% to social Security
21% to major health programs
12% to safety net programs
7% to federal retirees and veterans
3% to transportation infrastructure
2% to education
2% to science and medical research
1% to non-security international
5% to everything else

What are we going to prioritize? Stop paying soldiers? Stop paying Social Security benefits? Gutting healthcare programs like Medicare or Medicade? Pulling away the safety net? Stopping veterans benefits? Any or all of those things would have a huge negative economic impact for not only this country but for the entire world.

If the answer is to curtail spending, the time to do that is in the budgeting process. And after many months of complaining that there was no budget passed in the Senate, the GOP kept the passed bill in March from heading to conference. THAT is when these negotiations should have happened -- not at the 11th hour when the Tea Party is holding a gun to the head of the economy. This is insanity. We are debating something that has never been considered in the history of our nation and what might or might not happen. We should never be in the position to be having this debate.

I haven't seen mention of discretionary spending / earmarks...is that in the everything else?

What was sent to "defense" is not going toward Weapon Systems Reliability, Maintainability, Deployability or Research & Development. I'm guessing Homeland et al is in that number too?

Of the budgets spent, what is the value of the essential services provided? Yes some things are inherently government...but not all.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Senate reaches deal to end shutdown, avoid default - CNN.com

Oh goodie! Now we'll have another 3 months of our congressmen and senators acting like spoiled brats.

 

[GoIrish41]

Oh goodie! Now we'll have another 3 months of our congressmen and senators acting like spoiled brats.

Not yet. House has to agree to kick the can first.

 

[GoIrish41]

Government shutdown: Boehner says House won't block Senate plan - chicagotribune.com