Tag Archives: economics

Punishing the Successful

Posted on by
Reply

There are changes to Americans’ 401(k) plans that are included in the Omnibus Spendathon bill currently in front of Congress, and they are IMNSHO highly favorable. (Aside: I hope the Omnibus Spendathon gets killed in favor of a short-term bill—or no bill at all; we won’t miss the Federal government for a few days—that will let the incoming Republican-majority House have its input into the year’s spending. These 401(k) provisions could be brought up and enacted then.)

Among those changes are a raise in the age at which account holders must begin taking their Required Minimum Withdrawals from the current 72 years old to 75 years old.

Cue the outrage from the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their Leftist supporters, all of whom hate the success of others.

Some lawmakers, academics and policy analysts have criticized some of the provisions, including the move to raise the age of required retirement account distributions to 75. They argue much of the legislation benefits the wealthy and the financial-services industry.
“It will primarily subsidize the wealthy and worsen the racial wealth gap,” said a statement from Americans for Tax Fairness.

Leave aside the racist slur from ATF regarding its manufactured race beef. Never mind that the proposed legislation doesn’t harm anyone, or that it gives a path to greater prosperity to those willing to scrimp more now in favor of greater payoffs tomorrow. Those Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters are desperate to hold back some because others can’t keep up. They can’t conceive of—or refuse to consider—ways to help those others do better.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters, at bottom, have nothing but contempt for the capabilities of those of us on the middle and lower economic rungs. We average Americans are simply too grindingly stupid to be able to act on our own; we must be “taken care of” by our Betters on the Left.

Priorities

Posted on by
1

Another fail by the Progressive-Democrat Mayor of New York City Eric Adams.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said with the expiration of Title 42, the Big Apple may be forced to cut public services to prioritize an expected influx of an additional 1,000 migrants arriving every week.

He said it explicitly:

Truth be told, if corrective measures are not taken soon, we may very well be forced to cut or curtail programs New Yorkers rely on, and the pathway to house thousands more is uncertain[.]

There’s this bit of context, too:

In the past several months, New York City has already received more than 31,000 asylum seekers….

That in a city with a population of 8.8 million residents, of whom, more than 350 thousand already receive public assistance. And Adams seriously thinks the 31 thousand are a serious drain on so large a city with a welfare system so broad.

Adams seriously thinks American citizens should take a back seat to a small collection of illegal aliens.

Why is this mayor prioritizing illegal aliens over his city’s American residents in meting out his city’s finite support resources? Well, he is a Progressive-Democratic Party politician….

Progressive-Democratic Party Welfare Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written about this on a few occasions. The New York Post has current data, and they’re even worse. Here’s a table illustrating the matter (as usual, right click|Open in New Tab to get a bigger image).

And some specific data:

  • In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for a family of four with no one working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household.
  •  In a dozen states, the value of unemployment benefits and Obama­Care subsidies exceeds the salary and benefits of the average teacher, construction worker, electrician, firefighter, truck driver, machinist or retail associate.
  •  In New Jersey, a family of four can receive benefits equal to an annualized earned income of $108,000 with no one working.
  •  In Connecticut and New Jersey, a family earning $300,000 a year can receive ObamaCare subsidies
  •  New Jersey is a state where a family can earn the equivalent of $100,000 a year if both parents are collecting unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for health care. In Connecticut the benefits can reach $80,000.

Party is bent on keeping average Americans trapped in Party’s welfare cage and dependent on Party largesse in return for votes.

Decreasing Rate of Inflation

Posted on by
Reply

It’s still inflation, and it’s still growing. Wall Street Journal editors point out that

The 12-month inflation rate fell to 7.1% in November, which is down from 7.7% in October and is the fifth annual rate drop in a row since inflation peaked at 9.1% in June.

That decline, though, is against a higher rate of inflation that year ago—2021—than in 2020, the last year of the prior administration, which also was the last year of our economic burgeon.

In addition, greatly mitigating any beneficial effects of that reducing inflation rate, the prices generated by that inflation persist, and they will into the future. Those prices will be paid—into that same future—out of real wages that have shrunk by 3% year-on-year.

All of which suggests the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has good reason to stick to its leaked intention to lift rates by another 50 basis points on Wednesday.

No. The Fed should have stuck to its 75 basis points (0.75%) benchmark interest rate increase pattern, instead of its meek .50% increase of last Wednesday. Kill this inflation spiral. Kill it dead. Dragging things out only runs up the costs for us average Americans who continue to pay those increasing prices with shrinking dollars.

Even those editors seem to agree:

The better policy is to break inflation now and return sooner to the Fed’s target of 2%. That’s a stronger foundation for growth and a rising standard of living for workers whose budgets have been savaged by inflation.

The Editors’ headline is spot on: Inflation Isn’t Vanquished Yet.

Far from it. And neither are its pocketbook effects.

How Much

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians constantly and loudly insist that they need to raise taxes so that the rich actually pay their fair share.

Here are some data on what Americans actually pay at various levels of tax remittances.Notice, too, that the Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of four in 2020 was $26,200 for the Lower 48 and DC.

And there’s this, showing the progressing progressiveness of our tax code.Even as that marginal tax rate has come down, the percentage of total income taxes paid by those Evil Rich has gone up.

This is why those Progressive-Democrats steadfastly refuse to say how much is that “fair share,” whether in dollars or in rates.