SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The World Socialist Web Site reports
The Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and their allies in the corporate-controlled media have hailed the Census Bureau report released [September 13], claiming it demonstrates that the US economy has "turned the corner" and that the supposed "economic recovery" is now providing big dividends for working people and even for the poor.
[...] A careful examination of the figures presented in the Current Population Survey (CPS), the formal name of the study, suggests that the hosannas by Obama and the media are premature. The statistical data is not fabricated, but it has been packaged in the light most favorable to the Democrats in the final two months of a hotly contested presidential election.
[...] Many workers who were limited to part-time work in 2014, or were unemployed entirely, went back to work or worked longer hours in 2015. This does not mean they got a raise. A minimum-wage worker who went from 15 hours of work a week in 2014 to 30 hours of work a week in 2015 would see a doubling in his or her income, a 100 percent increase, entirely from longer hours, even as their pay remained abysmally low.
[...] Most new jobs taken by previously unemployed workers were in the low-pay service sectors, like healthcare, restaurants and bars, nursing homes, retail outlets, etc.
[Continues...]
[...] The only section of the population which saw an outright decline in median household income were people living in rural areas, already lower paid on average than people living in cities or suburbs. Their median household income fell 2 percent, to $44,657 annually, more than $15,000 a year behind people living in metropolitan areas (combining cities and suburbs). During the presidential primaries, these areas saw some of the largest votes for Trump, as well as for Sanders.
[...] Obama and the media also hailed the reported drop in the poverty rate.
[...] If one adds up those excluded from the survey--2.3 million prisoners, 1.4 million nursing home residents, 1.2 million in hospices, and 1.1 million in other long-term care settings--that means that some 6 million people are left out.
In addition, as the Census report explains, "Since the CPS is a household survey, people who are homeless and not living in shelters are not included in the sample." Again, a large group of people, at least half a million and perhaps many more, who are all living in poverty, but not counted in the Census report. [...] [If those folks were added in,] the total number of people living in poverty [would be] closer to 50 million Americans.
[...] "During the 4-year period from 2009 to 2012, 34.5 percent of the population had at least one spell of poverty lasting 2 or more months." The number is staggering: about 110 million people. The official poverty line is absurdly low, set now at $24,250 for a family of four, or $11,770 for an individual. But more than one-third of all Americans fell below that abysmal marker for a significant period of time.
An interviewer on my Pacifica Radio affiliate suggested another reason why the *household* income numbers seemed to go up a bit: Adult children moving back in with their parents and adding their part-time poverty-wage income to the total.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 17 2016, @05:50PM
This is a Clinton we're talking about where honesty and lies commingle in strangely honest ways. HRC could very well increase "income" tax on the extremely wealthy and live up to her promise while cutting taxes for the 1%. Remember how Steve Jobs paid himself $1/yr wages? She could raise taxes to 90% and he wouldn't care because he didn't get rich via "income" as that word is used by the IRS.
You can never take anything a Clinton says at face value because while it may be true, it will totally fuck the average person.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @07:38PM
Your entire theory is premised on the idea that all Clinton has is face value. She's the most wonkish candidate for president that the country has ever had. The exact details for her tax increase are on her website. Here's a summary of her plan for capital gains taxes and unsurprisingly it is exactly what the OP suggested:
"Rather, it's a signal to the corporate world that this isn't about finding superstars of short-term balance sheet and P&L manipulation. You guys, instead, need to find managers who will build long term value (think: Jeff Bezos instead of Meg Whitman for example)."
Currently, profits on the sale of an asset held for one year or less are considered short-term and are taxed at ordinary income tax rates up to a maximum of 43.4 percent (the 39.6 percent statutory rate plus the 3.8 percent net investment income surtax). Gains on an asset held longer than one year are considered long-term and are taxed at top rate of 23.8 percent (a preferential 20 percent rate plus the surtax). Clinton proposes to double the short-term holding period to two years, taxing any gains at ordinary rates, and then to reduce the tax rate roughly 4 percentage points for each additional year an investment is held. After six years, gains would be taxed at the current 23.8 percent top rate on long-term gains.
The tax change is not intended to add revenue (it would only contribute $84 billion of Clinton’s $1 trillion in new taxes over 10 years) but rather to change behavior. The hope is that the higher rates will give investors an incentive to hold assets longer, and that firms would use that capital to grow and create new jobs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0726/Clinton-wants-to-change-capital-gains-taxes [csmonitor.com]
So, my question for you is why do you assume some simplistic evil plan from clinton without even bothering to check? Is it just because it gives you good feels and you don't actually care about policy or governance?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:13AM
So, my question for you is why do you assume some simplistic evil plan from clinton without even bothering to check?
Uh... because she has constantly flip-flopped on her positions in the past, and supported the TPP, mass surveillance, and countless other horrendous laws, treaties, and policies? What's this nonsense about "good feels"? Since when is it a good idea to believe what a known liar says (and pretty much all politicians are known liars)?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:26AM
Because "liar" isn't binary.
She supported the TPP, while that was the official policy of her boss, because its not all bad. There are definitely bad parts and reasonable people can disagree about whether it is a net bad. Her being convinced that it is net bad instead of a net good isn't flip-flopping, its being convinced by a good argument. FWLIW my personal opinion of the TPP is that if they dropped the IP and corporate sovereignty parts I'd consider it a net good. What parts of it do you object to?
What other treaties and horrendous laws do you object to? Or is that just another generic, unresearched claim that gives you good feels?