Unemployment rises to 8.2%

1235»

Comments

  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    says the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby

    shocking...just shocking, the largest business lobby would be against the bush tax cuts expiring...

    So, we're against businesses now? Is that the new tenor of the country?

    A business biased lobby is something to look down on?

    INTERESTING
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    says the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby

    shocking...just shocking, the largest business lobby would be against the bush tax cuts expiring...

    So, we're against businesses now? Is that the new tenor of the country?

    A business biased lobby is something to look down on?

    INTERESTING

    No
    No
    It's something to be aware of...if a business based lobby is producing numbers...one should understand those numbers would be skewed positively in the direction the lobby would like them to be skewed...

    UNDERSTAND?
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    says the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby

    shocking...just shocking, the largest business lobby would be against the bush tax cuts expiring...

    So, we're against businesses now? Is that the new tenor of the country?

    A business biased lobby is something to look down on?

    INTERESTING

    No
    No
    It's something to be aware of...if a business based lobby is producing numbers...one should understand those numbers would be skewed positively in the direction the lobby would like them to be skewed...

    UNDERSTAND?

    So, you're not actually against employers? Good to know.

    In case you weren't aware, the White House's spokesperson slants reality their way.

    Are there any other obvious things we should fete here? Or were you really trying to make a point that you think the entire report should be ignored for the reason you cited?
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    So, you're not actually against employers? Good to know.

    In case you weren't aware, the White House's spokesperson slants reality their way.

    Are there any other obvious things we should fete here? Or were you really trying to make a point that you think the entire report should be ignored for the reason you cited?

    I'm saying the report should be looked at with a skeptical eye and should not automatically be accepted and gospel...

    for me, this piece is a hack job written by lobbyists...but that's me...
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    So, you're not actually against employers? Good to know.

    In case you weren't aware, the White House's spokesperson slants reality their way.

    Are there any other obvious things we should fete here? Or were you really trying to make a point that you think the entire report should be ignored for the reason you cited?

    I'm saying the report should be looked at with a skeptical eye and should not automatically be accepted and gospel...

    for me, this piece is a hack job written by lobbyists...but that's me...


    So, I was basically right. You are saying it should be ignored because it came from business leaders/employers.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    So, you're not actually against employers? Good to know.

    In case you weren't aware, the White House's spokesperson slants reality their way.

    Are there any other obvious things we should fete here? Or were you really trying to make a point that you think the entire report should be ignored for the reason you cited?

    I'm saying the report should be looked at with a skeptical eye and should not automatically be accepted and gospel...

    for me, this piece is a hack job written by lobbyists...but that's me...


    So, I was basically right. You are saying it should be ignored because it came from business leaders/employers.

    :cry: you are so desperate to be right that reading comprehension has abandoned you...that makes me sad...
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    I'm saying the report should be looked at with a skeptical eye and should not automatically be accepted and gospel...

    for me, this piece is a hack job written by lobbyists...but that's me...


    So, I was basically right. You are saying it should be ignored because it came from business leaders/employers.

    :cry: you are so desperate to be right that reading comprehension has abandoned you...that makes me sad...

    Actually, it's not about right or wrong. And, I think my reading comprehension is fine. You have indicated that the commentary should be ignored because it comes from a source that favors (lobbies on behalf of) businesses. To my recollections, businesses employ people, and thus, are in fact employers. So, it is actually good comprehension to make the logical conclusion that you think it should be ignored because employers have issued this opinion. Why would we listen to employers' opinion?

    Though, your line of thinking is the liberal party line. So, that's fine.

    Of course, there's 2 sides to every story and any report should be taken from that perspective. But, to suggest it should be completely ignored, and thus every shred of it is erroneous and not to be trusted, well, is what it is - that opinion means you don't value business leaders/employers view points. Obama seems to share your opinion.

    Personally, that seems wacky to me (just as wacky as taking this report 100% as gospel). But, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion.

    It is amazing to me that a President can actually run on a platform of rasising taxes, bigger government and demoralizing employers in an economic climate as this and win. But, win he will (so cheer up!!!!). It helps when your starting point is 95% of a given race regardless of policy.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:

    Actually, it's not about right or wrong. And, I think my reading comprehension is fine. You have indicated that the commentary should be ignored because it comes from a source that favors (lobbies on behalf of) businesses. To my recollections, businesses employ people, and thus, are in fact employers. So, it is actually good comprehension to make the logical conclusion that you think it should be ignored because employers have issued this opinion. Why would we listen to employers' opinion?

    Though, your line of thinking is the liberal party line. So, that's fine.

    Of course, there's 2 sides to every story and any report should be taken from that perspective. But, to suggest it should be completely ignored, and thus every shred of it is erroneous and not to be trusted, well, is what it is - that opinion means you don't value business leaders/employers view points. Obama seems to share your opinion.

    Personally, that seems wacky to me (just as wacky as taking this report 100% as gospel). But, so be it. You're entitled to your opinion.

    It is amazing to me that a President can actually run on a platform of rasising taxes, bigger government and demoralizing employers in an economic climate as this and win. But, win he will (so cheer up!!!!). It helps when your starting point is 95% of a given race regardless of policy.

    :nono:
    Where did I said the word "ignore" or "ignored"...?

    point it out, please....

    I said "skeptical" which means:

    skep·ti·cal   [skep-ti-kuhl]
    adjective
    1.
    inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
    2.
    showing doubt: a skeptical smile. (<<<<<this was my intended use of the word)
    3.
    denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles.
    4.
    ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to Skeptics or Skepticism.

    one can doubt something without ignoring it...so, Please stop assuming...

    I do love the line about race...I'd love to make an assumption...but I won't... :lol:

    and just how is O-bama "demoralizing employers"...? do tell...
  • EdsonNascimento
    EdsonNascimento Posts: 5,531
    inmytree wrote:

    :nono:
    Where did I said the word "ignore" or "ignored"...?

    point it out, please....

    I said "skeptical" which means:

    skep·ti·cal   [skep-ti-kuhl]
    adjective
    1.
    inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
    2.
    showing doubt: a skeptical smile. (<<<<<this was my intended use of the word)
    3.
    denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles.
    4.
    ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to Skeptics or Skepticism.

    one can doubt something without ignoring it...so, Please stop assuming...

    I do love the line about race...I'd love to make an assumption...but I won't... :lol:

    and just how is O-bama "demoralizing employers"...? do tell...

    You are right - you did not say the word "ignore." That's where reading comprehension comes in.

    Quite frankly, a simple skeptical comment can go with every single item that comes out in the news. So, why raise it here? That's where the translation to ignore comes in. Word play is fun. You didn't type ignore. Correct.

    As for race - was that statement a false one? It is actual fact. 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election. Or does there have to be skepticism attached to that fact? It is what it is. We have a free, open voting. I just wonder what would happen if 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate. Or 95% of Dog Lovers. Or, quite frankly, 95% of ANYTHING in the country did ANYTHING. Personally, I think it's racist. But, that's just me. What's your interpretation of 95% of African Amercians voting for Obama? Why as a country can we not talk openly about this?

    As for "demoralizing" businesses - I'm just glad I have roads to drive to work on. Thank you, Mommy and Daddy Government. That's missing the point, but whatever. It sounds good. We need to pay for roads, so businesses can be created, so please hand over your money. Meanwhile, we should be SKEPTICAL of business owners' association press releases on how policy might impact businesses. :roll:
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    EdsonNascimento wrote:
    inmytree wrote:

    :nono:
    Where did I said the word "ignore" or "ignored"...?

    point it out, please....

    I said "skeptical" which means:

    skep·ti·cal   [skep-ti-kuhl]
    adjective
    1.
    inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
    2.
    showing doubt: a skeptical smile. (<<<<<this was my intended use of the word)
    3.
    denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical approach to the nature of miracles.
    4.
    ( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to Skeptics or Skepticism.

    one can doubt something without ignoring it...so, Please stop assuming...

    I do love the line about race...I'd love to make an assumption...but I won't... :lol:

    and just how is O-bama "demoralizing employers"...? do tell...

    You are right - you did not say the word "ignore." That's where reading comprehension comes in.

    Quite frankly, a simple skeptical comment can go with every single item that comes out in the news. So, why raise it here? That's where the translation to ignore comes in. Word play is fun. You didn't type ignore. Correct.

    As for race - was that statement a false one? It is actual fact. 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election. Or does there have to be skepticism attached to that fact? It is what it is. We have a free, open voting. I just wonder what would happen if 95% of Caucasians voted for 1 candidate. Or 95% of Dog Lovers. Or, quite frankly, 95% of ANYTHING in the country did ANYTHING. Personally, I think it's racist. But, that's just me. What's your interpretation of 95% of African Amercians voting for Obama? Why as a country can we not talk openly about this?

    As for "demoralizing" businesses - I'm just glad I have roads to drive to work on. Thank you, Mommy and Daddy Government. That's missing the point, but whatever. It sounds good. We need to pay for roads, so businesses can be created, so please hand over your money. Meanwhile, we should be SKEPTICAL of business owners' association press releases on how policy might impact businesses. :roll:


    thanks for being honest and saying I was right... ;)

    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    as for demoralizing business...who knew business where run by a bunch of thin-skinned crybabies...O-bama says this:

    “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
    The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

    So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

    and business are suddenly demoralized...oh, the pain they must feel after hearing such things....
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,961
    inmytree wrote:
    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    1) Are we to be so scared of discussing race that we can't acknowledge the simple truth that Obama will get some african american votes only because he is black?

    2) I'm pretty sure you;d agree that Mitt will get some white votes because he's white?

    And I'd be willing to bet ya that #1 = more votes for Obama than #2 = votes for Mitt.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,961
    inmytree wrote:
    That’s how we created the middle class.

    Wait, who created the middle class?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    cincybearcat wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    1) Are we to be so scared of discussing race that we can't acknowledge the simple truth that Obama will get some african american votes only because he is black?

    2) I'm pretty sure you;d agree that Mitt will get some white votes because he's white?

    And I'd be willing to bet ya that #1 = more votes for Obama than #2 = votes for Mitt.

    1) nope...we can assume he will get some votes based on his race...just that we can assume he won't based on his race...

    2) yup

    and I'm not taking that bet...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    cincybearcat wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    That’s how we created the middle class.

    Wait, who created the middle class?

    we...

    ;)
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    inmytree wrote:
    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    So what?
    You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?

    Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."

    FUCK THAT.
    I have a problem with that.
    Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.

    It's
    a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
    b. just bad politics
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    So what?
    You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?

    Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."

    FUCK THAT.
    I have a problem with that.
    Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.

    It's
    a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
    b. just bad politics

    yeah, so what...


    I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone....that's their choice....as an aside: just because a few "well spoken black people", whatever the fuck that means, does not mean all African Americans voted based on this...

    for me, when someone votes against a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...

    I do find it interesting when folks blow a gasket over the fact that lots of African Americans voted for O-bama....he won their vote...

    now of some "well spoken black people" voted against McCain based in the sole fact that he was white, that would be an issue...
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    inmytree wrote:
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    inmytree wrote:
    as for race...so 95% of African Amercians voted for Obama in the last election...so what...?

    So what?
    You don't think it speaks to SOMETHING that Obama was essentially elected through RACISM?

    Call it what you want. Say it isn't because it is not PC for a minority to be accused of racism, but it DRIVES ME NUTS when i hear otherwise well spoken black people (i've seen this on the goddamn "News") say "... and well, yeah I'll admit it, I voted for him because he was black. Yeah i did."

    FUCK THAT.
    I have a problem with that.
    Not because i'm some sort of White Supremacist Bigot, but because it is reprehensible to vote for someone based on the color of their skin, regardless of your functional classification as a "minority" or not.

    It's
    a. stupid \ ignorant \ racist
    b. just bad politics

    yeah, so what...


    I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone....that's their choice....as an aside: just because a few "well spoken black people", whatever the fuck that means, does not mean all African Americans voted based on this...

    for me, when someone votes against a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...

    I do find it interesting when folks blow a gasket over the fact that lots of African Americans voted for O-bama....he won their vote...

    now of some "well spoken black people" voted against McCain based in the sole fact that he was white, that would be an issue...

    So if a white man were to support a klan member because he is white, he would not be a racist?
    but if one were to denounce Jeremiah Wright for being black, they would be?

    This is confusing.

    So as long as you blindly allow race to influence your support of someone,
    it's okay?

    ps - and as aside, like ... whoa, i have no idea whateverthefuck you may be insinuating by whateverthefuck you may mean regarding my "otherwise wellspoken black person" comment. :roll: :roll: :roll:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,961
    inmytree wrote:


    I get that some don't like the reasoning some may have for voting for someone...

    for me, when someone votes against a candidate based on race, that's a problem...yeah, yeah...that's mindblowing but that's my stance...


    It's the same thing champ, hard to see that any other way.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

    So if a white man were to support a klan member because he is white, he would not be a racist?
    but if one were to denounce Jeremiah Wright for being black, they would be?

    This is confusing.

    So as long as you blindly allow race to influence your support of someone,
    it's okay?

    ps - and as aside, like ... whoa, i have no idea whateverthefuck you may be insinuating by whateverthefuck you may mean regarding my "otherwise wellspoken black person" comment. :roll: :roll: :roll:

    Is the Klan a racist organization...? I say yes, therefore yes, that would be racist...

    if you're saying that O-bama is a racist then voting for him based on race would be racism...

    and if you don't see that the phrase "well-spoken black person" has a racial tinge to it, I'm not sure what to say....

    edit: I'm not calling you a racist in any form or fashion...I'm just addressing your choice of words...that's all...no disrespect intended, my friend...
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Bronx Bombers wrote:
    The U.S. would lose 710,000 jobs and economic output would decline by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, if tax cuts for high earners are allowed to lapse, said a report prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other supporters of the tax breaks.

    The study by Ernst & Young LLP supports Republican efforts to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners.

    “The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending,” wrote the report’s authors, Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante.

    In addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby, the report was issued on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation (SCI) (SCI) Association.

    ‘Long Run’
    The report’s authors said they used an Ernst & Young economic model to examine the “long run” effects of an increase in the top tax rates. The report didn’t give details on when the job and economic losses would occur, although an end note said two-thirds to three-fourths of the long-run effect would occur within a decade.

    If Congress doesn’t act, all individual income tax rates will increase in 2013, as would rates on capital gains, dividends and estates. Republicans want to extend the current rates for a year and overhaul the U.S. tax code.

    A Senate Democratic proposal would extend the tax cuts for income of individuals under $200,000 and married couples under $250,000. The top rates on dividends and capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent from 15 percent and the top rate on estates would go up to 45 percent from 35 percent.

    Democrats maintain that high-income taxpayers can afford to pay more to help reduce the budget deficit. The Obama administration disputed the study, saying it gets “the president’s tax cuts wrong” and employs “flawed assumptions.”

    ‘Ignoring the Benefits’
    In a post on the White House website, Amy Brundage, a spokeswoman, said the study “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”

    Republicans say raising anyone’s taxes isn’t worth the economic harm they say would result.

    “Our economy is still struggling under President Obama’s policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher,” U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement. “It’s one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses.”

    Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for “comprehensive tax reform that will provide the certainty these entrepreneurs need.”

    ‘Double Down’
    “Rather than double down on tax hikes that will make it harder to get America back to work, it is time to stop the tax hike -- for all taxpayers,” Camp said in a statement.

    Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said the report is flawed because it makes alternative assumptions that revenue from higher tax rates could be used to finance a higher level of government.

    “The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction,” Levin said in a statement.

    Asked about the report, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said few, if any, Democrats with whom he has spoken have qualms about letting the tax rates for high earners lapse at year’s end.

    The House plans to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts the week of July 30. Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois said that chamber is likely to vote on its plan the week of July 23.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... amber-says

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... fpnewsfeed

    Republicans Twist Flawed Study To Claim Higher Taxes On Wealthy Would Harm Economy

    BRIAN BEUTLER JULY 19, 2012, 12:47 PM 3118
    Republicans are citing a new report (PDF) by economists at the accounting firm Ernst & Young to claim that President Obama’s plan to allow Bush tax cuts benefitting high-income earners to expire could have serious macroeconomic consequences, including 710,000 job losses.

    Major business trade associations, including the Republican friendly Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, commissioned the analysis. And according to independent economists, there’s reason to be skeptical of its assumptions, and of the way the findings are being portrayed in the political realm.
    “Seems odd that the researchers didn’t consider the scenario in which the additional tax revenues are used for deficit reduction,” said Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi. “It seems to me that is the more relevant scenario. And my sense is that if they did, the results would be very different.”

    Indeed, the Ernst & Young study forecasts based on two different assumptions: That the higher revenues are either used to finance across the board tax cuts, or to finance new government spending. It’s only in the latter scenario that the analysts forecast significant economic contraction.

    “It is telling that when the additional tax revenues are used for across the board tax cuts, then the negative GDP impact is largely washed out and the employment impact is positive,” Zandi says.

    The authors of the report did not respond to a request for comment Thursday morning.

    Dean Baker, co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research offered a similar observation. “It calculated the impact of a tax increase that is used for higher government consumption spending. It does not measure the impact of a tax increase that is used either for deficit reduction or investment in infrastructure and education,” Baker wrote. “The model used in this analysis would likely to show that either of these two uses of higher tax revenue would lead to increases in output, jobs, and wages, not decreases.”

    In a followup email, Baker also noted that one of the report’s key assumptions is ahistorical.

    “The [projected] reduction in output is due to the fact that with a lower real wage people will opt to work less — thereby less output,” Baker writes. “The empirical support for effects of the size described in the study is pretty weak. If we get this big a loss with tax rates at 39.6 percent, imagine the hit when we had tax rate at 70 percent or even 90 percent. Working backward from the projections in the study, we could say that annual growth would have been 1-2 percentages points higher in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, if we had the current tax rates. I doubt anyone believes that.”

    But the reports also being interpreted as if it concludes that the shock to the economy would be immediate. That’s false.

    “The projections discussed in the article are long-run projections, not effects that would be felt in the next year or two,” Baker writes.

    And then there’s a timing issue. The report was released earlier this week, before Senate Democrats had unveiled the legislative details of their plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone’s first $250,000 of income. The report assumes that Democrats propose to increase the tax on dividends for those with income above $250,000 to 39.6 percent. In reality, the Democrats’ proposal is much more modest.

    According to an official summary of the plan, “For income in excess of $200,000 (individual filers), $225,000 (heads of households) and $250,000 (married filing jointly), the rate for both capital gains and dividends will be 20%.”

Categories