Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

A Thought on Net Neutrality

Posted on by
Reply

…as conceived in secret by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The image below, from the AP via USA Today, is…illustrative. The outage about which the article was written was clearly the result of vandalism. Read carefully, those signs taped to the window in the image.NetNeutrality

Think about them. Think about what happens when Government controls the Internet. The concerns presently center of free speech, and those concerns are of extreme importance. But the same control gives Government control over what businesses will be allowed to operate on the Internet, and at what cost—unique, perhaps, to a company of which Government disapproves.

A “Clean” DHS Bill from the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate passed, yesterday, by 98-2, a bill that funds DHS fully and sent it to the House.

If (House) Republicans are smart, they’ll accept the trap the Senate Democrats have given them, take up the Senate bill, and amend it to include the original measures to block President Barack Obama’s immigration “executive actions.” That will force the bill to a House-Senate Conference Committee, and the result of that goes to each house of Congress for reconciliation vote—no filibuster.

One More Nail

Posted on by
Reply

…in what should be Obamacare’s coffin. Even if repeal will take some years and a Republican President.

More than half of tax filers who received subsidies for health insurance premiums may owe hundreds of dollars because they got tax credits that were too large, complicating an already messy tax season that has seen about 800,000 incorrect tax statements sent to consumers who obtained coverage via the federal HealthCare.gov exchange.

Almost six weeks into tax filing season, 52% of people who enrolled in insurance through state or federal exchanges are finding they must pay back a portion of their tax credits, according to a report Tuesday by tax preparation firm H&R Block Inc. and based on their clients. The average amount paid back is $530….

This isn’t even a sort-of funny parody, anymore.

Jeh Johnson and Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said allowing the agency to lose its federal funding after Friday could jeopardize the US efforts to thwart a domestic terror attack by the Islamic State and will result in 30,000 employees being furloughed.

“It[‘s] including people I depend on every day to stay one step ahead of” the Islamic State, he told NBC’s Meet the Press.

Johnson carefully elided the small detail that 200,000 DHS employees—including all of his security forces—would remain on the job. More importantly, he would do well to direct his concern to his fellow Democrats in the Senate. Those worthies are busily filibustering a bill that fully funds Johnson’s DHS.

Separately, but relatedly, Johnson, in the course of making his Sunday talk show rounds, said this on Fox News Sunday:

The thing I hear from leaders in the Muslim community in this country is ISIL is attempting to hijack my religion[.]

So he says. The only leaders in the Muslim community that are getting any press are from CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood in President Barack Obama’s “Conference on Violent Extremism” coffee klatch a week or so ago. Where are the serious Muslim leaders? I actually agree with the thrust of Johnson’s claim, but if these guys really are upset, they need to speak up. At least as loudly and publicly as are these religion hijackers.

And this on the same show:

Whether it’s referred to as Islamic extremism or violent extremism, what it comes down to is ISIL is a terrorist organization that represents a serious potential threat to our homeland, which has to be addressed. I’m more concerned about that frankly than I am about what two words we use to refer to them.

If that’s the case, if “two words” are such a trivial matter, then why are you so absolutely resistant to using them out loud? Why not just do so and rid yourself of this turbulent distraction?

Another Perspective on Minimum Wage

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Perry has one in his Carpe Diem column for AEIdeas.

In a recent post, I posed the question: rather than calling it “an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 (or $15) per hour,” if we instead called it “imposing a $2.85 (or $7.75) per hour tax on employers who employ or hire unskilled workers,” would it make any difference to those who support “an increase in the minimum wage”? Maybe not for some of the strongest advocates of a higher minimum wage, but perhaps it would make a difference for some weaker advocates who were never challenged to think of it that way?

He then calculates the associated payroll taxes (a tax on the tax, or a surtax, in his construction) based on full time work (i.e., 40-hour work weeks) and the larger minimum wage increment, but what would that surtax work out to for the typical minimum wage worker’s half-time employment?

The employer tax of $2.85 would work out to an additional tax of $2,850 per year per part-time minimum wage employee. The surtax on that under current payroll tax law would come to just under $220 per year per employee, or a total employer tax of just under $3,070 per year. Per employee.

How many small business employers (the Walmarts of the world are an aberration) can afford that additional labor cost tax? At what point does an employer, of any size, decide the work being done isn’t worth the mandated cost and either stops doing it or automates it?