COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who the fuck cares

COLORED FOOL plays golf

COLOREDCUNT has BLING

2 PROZZIES are stuffing their cunts with FREE SHIT

HOW’S THAT HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF WORKIN’ OUT FOR YA? (CONT’D): Long-Term Jobless Left Out of the Recovery: Despite Improving Economy, Prospects Are Bleak for Millions of Unemployed.
 
OBAMACARE’S TOLL: Average Marginal Labor Income Tax Rates under the Affordable Care Act. “The law increases marginal tax rates by an average of five percentage points (of employee compensation), on top of the marginal tax rates that were already present before the it went into effect. The ACA’s addition to labor tax wedges is roughly equivalent to doubling both employer and employee payroll tax rates for half of the population.”
 
Pablo Plunder said:
OBAMACARE’S TOLL: Average Marginal Labor Income Tax Rates under the Affordable Care Act. “The law increases marginal tax rates by an average of five percentage points (of employee compensation), on top of the marginal tax rates that were already present before the it went into effect. The ACA’s addition to labor tax wedges is roughly equivalent to doubling both employer and employee payroll tax rates for half of the population.”
Click to expand...

But the free healthcare is worth it. :cool:
 
vetteman said:
Thanks to the President and the idiots who support him:

AFL-CIO PRESIDENT TRUMKA ADMITS OBAMACARE MAKING EMPLOYERS CUT HOURS

by WARNER TODD HUSTON 5 Sep 2013, 1:48 AM PDT

As President Obama attempts to convince Americans that employers are not cutting employees' hours to save their jobs from the costs of the Affordable Care Act, evidence to the contrary is piling up.

Even the President of one of the largest private sector unions in the country has admitted that Obamacare is costing employees hours.
In a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are "restructuring their workforce," giving employees fewer hours—and it's all because of the negative impacts of Obamacare.

AFL-CIO PResident Richard Trumka: The Affordable Care Act does need some modifications to it, because as it does right now, what's happening is, you have employers that the law says if you pay your, if your employees work 30 hours or more a week, you've got to give them healthcare. So they're restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don't have to provide them healthcare. They’re also doing some taxing to nonprofit plans to pay for for-profit plans.

Meanwhile, a growing list of up to 258 large employers in states all across the country have announced that they are cutting jobs and hours as a result of the impact Obamacare will have on their businesses, organizations, and institutions.

Employers such as Subway sandwich shops, Republic Foods (owner of Burger King), Royal Farms Convenience Stores, public institutions such as Southern Illinois University, Youngstown State University, as well as counties and government agencies on the state level are laying off employees and cutting the hours of others in order to steer clear of the fees and taxes imposed by Obamacare.

With this admission by one of Obama's biggest boosters and largest political donors, the AFL-CIO casts further doubt on the claim that Obamacare is good for American's jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...urs?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Click to expand...

The afl-cio will also be losing member unions. :cool:
 
vetteman said:
How could this possibly be, Obama said......:rolleyes:



economix_print.png


EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact

By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

From a tax perspective, the Affordable Care Act is in a different league than the Massachusetts health reform law passed in 2006.

The Affordable Care Act was intended to expand the fraction of the United States population covered by health insurance. The law includes taxes on employers and various implicit taxes on employees that go into effect over the next two years. Economic theory suggests that such taxes will contract the labor market in an amount commensurate with the amount of the new taxes.

The federal government and other advocates of Obamacare have dismissed concerns that the coming labor market contraction would be significant, or even noticeable, by pointing to Massachusetts’s experience with its so-called Romneycare system, also designed to expand insurance coverage. Because the Massachusetts labor market did not noticeably contract relative to the rest of the nation after its system went into effect, an official of the federal Department of Health and Human Services told The Washington Examiner that the experience in Massachusetts suggested “that the health care law will improve the affordability and accessibility of health care without significantly affecting the labor market.”

Prof. David Cutler of Harvard recently addressed, on this blog, concerns about possibly adverse tax effects, saying, “Additional data from Massachusetts, where a state law was the precursor to the Affordable Care Act, suggests that the fears are overblown” and “at this point the evidence overwhelmingly suggests no need for major worry.”

This position assumes that the Massachusetts system increased marginal labor income tax rates in the state by roughly the same magnitude that the Affordable Care Act will increase them in the United States (by marginal labor income tax rate, I mean the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working, expressed as a ratio to the total compensation from working). This assumption is no longer necessary, because the methods I have used to measure marginal tax rates from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unemployment insurance expansions and the Affordable Care Act can also be applied to the Massachusetts health reform law. The results are shown in the chart below.

The left bar shows that the Massachusetts law did, on average, increase marginal tax rates and thereby reduce the reward to working. But the impact was well under one percentage point, and for that reason it’s probably not surprising that, relative to other states that were not experiencing health reform, the Massachusetts labor market did not change noticeably after the law went into effect.

The right bar shows the impact of the Affordable Care Act on nationwide marginal tax rates: it increases national rates about 12 times as much as the Massachusetts law increased rates. Earlier this year I explained why the Massachusetts law was so different from a tax perspective: among other things, its employer penalty is an order of magnitude less, the state’s population is not the same as the national population, and Massachusetts had already been helping unemployed people with health insurance.

It follows that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on employment and work hours would be roughly 12 times as great as the effect of the Massachusetts law. That doesn’t by itself tell us the exact impact of the national law because we don’t have a precise estimate of the impact in Massachusetts, except that it was small. For example, if the Massachusetts law reduced employment by 0.1 percent, the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be roughly 1.2 percent; not small. If the Massachusetts law’s effect were 0.25 percent (still small), the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be 3 percent: again, not small. The bottom line was that it was wrong to expect the two laws to have had the same effects.

Call me gloomy, but I’m one economist who thinks that adding, on average, five percentage points to marginal tax rates will noticeably depress the labor market, while adding a few tenths of a point in Massachusetts did not.
Click to expand...

MercStinkyMORON will be along shortly to straighten you out. :)
 
vetteman said:
How could this possibly be, Obama said......:rolleyes:



economix_print.png


EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact

By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

From a tax perspective, the Affordable Care Act is in a different league than the Massachusetts health reform law passed in 2006.

The Affordable Care Act was intended to expand the fraction of the United States population covered by health insurance. The law includes taxes on employers and various implicit taxes on employees that go into effect over the next two years. Economic theory suggests that such taxes will contract the labor market in an amount commensurate with the amount of the new taxes.

The federal government and other advocates of Obamacare have dismissed concerns that the coming labor market contraction would be significant, or even noticeable, by pointing to Massachusetts’s experience with its so-called Romneycare system, also designed to expand insurance coverage. Because the Massachusetts labor market did not noticeably contract relative to the rest of the nation after its system went into effect, an official of the federal Department of Health and Human Services told The Washington Examiner that the experience in Massachusetts suggested “that the health care law will improve the affordability and accessibility of health care without significantly affecting the labor market.”

Prof. David Cutler of Harvard recently addressed, on this blog, concerns about possibly adverse tax effects, saying, “Additional data from Massachusetts, where a state law was the precursor to the Affordable Care Act, suggests that the fears are overblown” and “at this point the evidence overwhelmingly suggests no need for major worry.”

This position assumes that the Massachusetts system increased marginal labor income tax rates in the state by roughly the same magnitude that the Affordable Care Act will increase them in the United States (by marginal labor income tax rate, I mean the extra taxes paid, and subsidies forgone, as the result of working, expressed as a ratio to the total compensation from working). This assumption is no longer necessary, because the methods I have used to measure marginal tax rates from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, unemployment insurance expansions and the Affordable Care Act can also be applied to the Massachusetts health reform law. The results are shown in the chart below.

The left bar shows that the Massachusetts law did, on average, increase marginal tax rates and thereby reduce the reward to working. But the impact was well under one percentage point, and for that reason it’s probably not surprising that, relative to other states that were not experiencing health reform, the Massachusetts labor market did not change noticeably after the law went into effect.

The right bar shows the impact of the Affordable Care Act on nationwide marginal tax rates: it increases national rates about 12 times as much as the Massachusetts law increased rates. Earlier this year I explained why the Massachusetts law was so different from a tax perspective: among other things, its employer penalty is an order of magnitude less, the state’s population is not the same as the national population, and Massachusetts had already been helping unemployed people with health insurance.

It follows that the effect of the Affordable Care Act on employment and work hours would be roughly 12 times as great as the effect of the Massachusetts law. That doesn’t by itself tell us the exact impact of the national law because we don’t have a precise estimate of the impact in Massachusetts, except that it was small. For example, if the Massachusetts law reduced employment by 0.1 percent, the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be roughly 1.2 percent; not small. If the Massachusetts law’s effect were 0.25 percent (still small), the Affordable Care Act’s effect would be 3 percent: again, not small. The bottom line was that it was wrong to expect the two laws to have had the same effects.

Call me gloomy, but I’m one economist who thinks that adding, on average, five percentage points to marginal tax rates will noticeably depress the labor market, while adding a few tenths of a point in Massachusetts did not.
Click to expand...

Those glibertarians at the University of Chicago are hard-pressed to come up with a narrative to denigrate Obamacare.

If "That....That's DIFFERENT!" is the best they have, then they have lost the debate.
 
vetteman said:
How could this possibly be, Obama said......:rolleyes:



economix_print.png


EPTEMBER 4, 2013, 12:01 AM
Obamacare vs. Romneycare: The Labor Impact

By CASEY B. MULLIGAN
Click to expand...

What a surprise, an economist from The American Enterprise Institute is opposed to the ACA... :rolleyes:

So much for The NYT being a bastion of leftist thought that doesn't present any dissent though huh. AJ will not be pleased with you for this.
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
What a surprise, an economist from The American Enterprise Institute is opposed to the ACA... :rolleyes:

So much for The NYT being a bastion of leftist thought that doesn't present any dissent though huh. AJ will not be pleased with you for this.
Click to expand...

True to the usual glibertarian cowardice, the data and methodology used in this op-ed are paywalled. We're supposed to take this guy at his word.

Given the fact that glibertarians are one of the few demographics in America that lie more frequently than Vietnam-era Marines, I'll presume the author is lying until he shows us the methodology.
 
vetteman said:
You'll deny the truth no matter what the methodology is.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The comments section of the NYT is having a lot of fun mocking the glibertarian's distorted chart. Glad you didn't have the guts and/or intelligence to post that chart here or I'd have been honor-bound to mock you for it.
 
vetteman said:
Are the material facts of the article in error?
Click to expand...

There's no way of knowing, since all of the "facts" aren't available unless you're willing to pay to see them.

I for one would rather not support the AEI in any way. There's a good chance that the data used to support the assertions made is not freely available for a reason. Likely because they don't really support the assertions made except by stretching the limits of the definition of "fact".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Counselor706
Joe Biden and the powerless presidency
Replies
5
Views
260
John_von_Neumann
J
Ulaven_Demorte
New and Improved "Doom and Gloom™" Thread
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
K
Paul Krugman: "In Defense of Obama"
5 6 7
Replies
155
Views
5K
IrezumiKiss
IrezumiKiss
Ulaven_Demorte
About all of the minimum wage "Doom and Gloom"
2
Replies
30
Views
811
bronzeage
bronzeage
4
Investing In a World of Make Believe
Replies
8
Views
263
eyer
E
Back
Top