Just a thought that could be applied to any number of news (or anti-news) stories in the last few days (or weeks, or months)
Somebody could walk into this room
And say your life is on fire
It's all over the evening news
All about the fire in your life on the evening news
-- Paul Simon, "Crazy Love, Vol. II"
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
WSJ Claims Millionaires Fleeing Maryland?
This is at least the second time that this ballyhooed idea has come up within my purview in the last few weeks - namely, that the increase in the top marginal tax rate in Maryland last year is driving away rich people from the state.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107123/Millionaires-Go-Missing
Forget for a minute the fudging on how many people making over $1 million in 2007 no longer made over $1 million in 2008 in the midst of the biggest economic recession since the 1930's (since parsing out this effect would almost certainly give you some idea about the magnitude of the WSJ's complaint). While the 6.25 percent tax rate sounds high (and you can certainly argue about whether it is or is not too high), this article seems to be overstating the case.
Here are the Maryland tax brackets in 2008: http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107123/Millionaires-Go-Missing
Take a hypothetical single filer who made $1.5 million in 2008 and assume that this person took no tax deductions or tax credits. The first $1 million was taxed at an average rate of 5.26 percent ($52,572.50). The next $500,000 is taxed at a rate of 6.25 percent ($31,250). Without the $1 million marginal tax rate, the top marginal rate would have been 5.5 percent ($27,500). The difference amounts to $3,750. In addition, state taxes are tax deductible (but filers are also subject to the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, which may very well apply in this hypothetical case).
Based on what I could find about pre-2008 tax rates (http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/070919.html), it looks like our same hypothetical tax payer would have paid 4.75 percent of all income above $3,000 in 2007 ($71,107.50), a total difference of $12,715 (or 0.85 percent of total income). Certainly that is higher than the difference resulting from the top tier, but it's also not at all the point that the WSJ is making.
Of course, there aren't any stories of Maryland teetering on the brink of economic collapse, either. While a $100 million shortfall in the budget would be notable (1) the recession itself is having a much larger effect on Maryland and every other state and (2) it's a drop in a bucket when Maryland's 2010 budget is about $32 billion.
Maybe the tax rate is too high/just right/not high enough; I just find it hard to believe that this many people with 7-figure incomes are leaving the state altogether over a matter of a few thousand dollars, at least without some better evidence. Better evidence is welcome here.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107123/Millionaires-Go-Missing
Forget for a minute the fudging on how many people making over $1 million in 2007 no longer made over $1 million in 2008 in the midst of the biggest economic recession since the 1930's (since parsing out this effect would almost certainly give you some idea about the magnitude of the WSJ's complaint). While the 6.25 percent tax rate sounds high (and you can certainly argue about whether it is or is not too high), this article seems to be overstating the case.
Here are the Maryland tax brackets in 2008: http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/107123/Millionaires-Go-Missing
Take a hypothetical single filer who made $1.5 million in 2008 and assume that this person took no tax deductions or tax credits. The first $1 million was taxed at an average rate of 5.26 percent ($52,572.50). The next $500,000 is taxed at a rate of 6.25 percent ($31,250). Without the $1 million marginal tax rate, the top marginal rate would have been 5.5 percent ($27,500). The difference amounts to $3,750. In addition, state taxes are tax deductible (but filers are also subject to the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, which may very well apply in this hypothetical case).
Based on what I could find about pre-2008 tax rates (http://www.gov.state.md.us/pressreleases/070919.html), it looks like our same hypothetical tax payer would have paid 4.75 percent of all income above $3,000 in 2007 ($71,107.50), a total difference of $12,715 (or 0.85 percent of total income). Certainly that is higher than the difference resulting from the top tier, but it's also not at all the point that the WSJ is making.
Of course, there aren't any stories of Maryland teetering on the brink of economic collapse, either. While a $100 million shortfall in the budget would be notable (1) the recession itself is having a much larger effect on Maryland and every other state and (2) it's a drop in a bucket when Maryland's 2010 budget is about $32 billion.
Maybe the tax rate is too high/just right/not high enough; I just find it hard to believe that this many people with 7-figure incomes are leaving the state altogether over a matter of a few thousand dollars, at least without some better evidence. Better evidence is welcome here.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Ravens Sign L. J. Smith
Apparently concerned that Todd Heap didn't drop enough passes at tight end last year, the Ravens have signed L. J. Smith.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Weather
While WN finds few things more banal or insipid than idle talk about the weather, it is rather odd to see the biggest snowstorm of the year juxtaposed with a weekend that is supposed to have temperatures reaching 70 degrees. March: in like a lamb, out like a freaking lunatic.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Fun Fact of the Day
The Planetary Foundation is sending some living organisms and some soil from the Russian tundra towards Mars and then back to see if life can survive in space. It turns out that NASA has a person whose official job title is Planetary Protection Official. That sounds like a cool job and and even cooler business card.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A Few Things
1. I know there's a lot of controversy about the stimulus bill (more on that below), but what was The Today Show (or is it just Today) doing interviewing Karl Rove as its first guest on Tuesday to talk about it? What do you think he said? Why are they interviewing someone who is a campaign manager? (Surprisingly, Karl Rove didn't like the bill.) Perhaps not even worth asking, but why did Matt Lauer not press Rove when he accused Obama for the entirety of the recession and its related symptoms? (Rove says Obama immediately prevented regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac upon entering the Senate in 2005 and that the Bush administration was never against deregulation. Which, to my knowledge, is the only time anyone has really thought of anything positive that would follow the phrase, "If only Alan Keyes had won ...")
At least ABC and Good Morning America had the good sense to bring on Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. It's not that Krugman is neutral, but at least somebody who knew something (well, plenty) about economics was asked to weigh in on this bill.
2. And, for that matter, why are talk shows and pundit shows always full of current and former campaign personnel? James Carville, Mary Matalin, Paul Begala, Rove, etc. Of course these people are going to stick to the party line (or whatever they think it should be). It's not that people who are clearly liberal or conservative shouldn't be brought onto these shows, but it would be useful to have someone who (a) might be the slightest bit objective and (b) actually knows what they're talking about.
3. Everyone is so down on the stimulus bill. Perhaps it's sort of scary to see a number that big ($800 billion!), but that's not even 10 percent of the U.S. GDP in one year. Over 10 years it's less than 1 percent. A little perspective. I don't think that this in and of itself should shoot down all criticisms of the bill (some of which are legitimate), but come on, people, did you think this wasn't going to be expensive?
4. As for other illegitimate criticisms, I'll only address this. People: this is not socialism. Socialism is an entirely different form of government. The government spending money - even if it's a lot of it, even if it's borrowing the money - is not socialism. Socialism is when the state controls all means of production - they would essentially own everything. If anything, I think both the Bush and Obama administrations have gone out of their ways to make sure nothing they do looks anything like socialism. Spending more money on roads and scientific research and health care (and, let's face it, a lot of this money is basically going to the States for things they were already doing - and some of the States have royally screwed up their budgets) - anyway, spending money on things we were already doing isn't going to be the sudden transformation from some robust free-market capitalist democracy to Soviet-style revolution. No matter what Newsweek or Fox News says. Perspective!
5. Yes, the woman who has 14 babies and sort of looks like Angelina Jolie and blah blah blah seems to be crazy. But isn't there some other news going on in the world? No matter what you think about her (I think she's a little crazy but completely delusional), she didn't do anything illegal. (Stupid ...) How about this: we leave her (and her 14 kids) alone, she leaves us alone. Good grief, you would think with all of the actual important news going on that this would be a blip on the radar (the economy, the stimulus bill, Iraq, Afghanistan) ... check that, this is exactly what you would expect.
At least ABC and Good Morning America had the good sense to bring on Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. It's not that Krugman is neutral, but at least somebody who knew something (well, plenty) about economics was asked to weigh in on this bill.
2. And, for that matter, why are talk shows and pundit shows always full of current and former campaign personnel? James Carville, Mary Matalin, Paul Begala, Rove, etc. Of course these people are going to stick to the party line (or whatever they think it should be). It's not that people who are clearly liberal or conservative shouldn't be brought onto these shows, but it would be useful to have someone who (a) might be the slightest bit objective and (b) actually knows what they're talking about.
3. Everyone is so down on the stimulus bill. Perhaps it's sort of scary to see a number that big ($800 billion!), but that's not even 10 percent of the U.S. GDP in one year. Over 10 years it's less than 1 percent. A little perspective. I don't think that this in and of itself should shoot down all criticisms of the bill (some of which are legitimate), but come on, people, did you think this wasn't going to be expensive?
4. As for other illegitimate criticisms, I'll only address this. People: this is not socialism. Socialism is an entirely different form of government. The government spending money - even if it's a lot of it, even if it's borrowing the money - is not socialism. Socialism is when the state controls all means of production - they would essentially own everything. If anything, I think both the Bush and Obama administrations have gone out of their ways to make sure nothing they do looks anything like socialism. Spending more money on roads and scientific research and health care (and, let's face it, a lot of this money is basically going to the States for things they were already doing - and some of the States have royally screwed up their budgets) - anyway, spending money on things we were already doing isn't going to be the sudden transformation from some robust free-market capitalist democracy to Soviet-style revolution. No matter what Newsweek or Fox News says. Perspective!
5. Yes, the woman who has 14 babies and sort of looks like Angelina Jolie and blah blah blah seems to be crazy. But isn't there some other news going on in the world? No matter what you think about her (I think she's a little crazy but completely delusional), she didn't do anything illegal. (Stupid ...) How about this: we leave her (and her 14 kids) alone, she leaves us alone. Good grief, you would think with all of the actual important news going on that this would be a blip on the radar (the economy, the stimulus bill, Iraq, Afghanistan) ... check that, this is exactly what you would expect.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Hat in the Ring
Okay, for the good of a nation, WN will inform President Obama that he is indeed interested in serving as Secretary of Commerce. I have paid all of my taxes through 2008, I have never had a nanny or housekeeper (so no immigration issues or anything like that to worry about), I am willing to pretty much do whatever they tell me, and I can't be too much worse than the third choice on the list, anyways.
Sort of a rocky start for the new administration. They certainly aren't the first administration to have a few Cabinet picks wash out (in fact, it's a veritable ritual in the first 100 days) and the problems we're having right now are certainly bigger than we've had at the beginning of a new presidency since at least 1980 (and the only other years that come to mind are 1932 and 1968). So ... what did we expect, anyways?
Sort of a rocky start for the new administration. They certainly aren't the first administration to have a few Cabinet picks wash out (in fact, it's a veritable ritual in the first 100 days) and the problems we're having right now are certainly bigger than we've had at the beginning of a new presidency since at least 1980 (and the only other years that come to mind are 1932 and 1968). So ... what did we expect, anyways?
Monday, February 09, 2009
LSM - Ravens
1. What a season! It's a shame that they had to play Pittsburgh for a third time - and lose a close game (with some dubious officiating) for a third time - but still an incredible run. 11-5 in the regular season (with a really rough schedule), 2-1 in the playoffs (all on the road), and (do I dare say) we have found our franchise quarterback for the next 12 years. (I like Joe Cool as a nickname, since he seems to be the least excitable football player in the league, but I'm still pushing for Bazooka Joe.)
2. Free agency: The Ravens have really 6 key free agents: Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Bart Scott, Jason Brown, Jim Leohnard, and Dawan Landry. I don't know whether the Ravens will keep either Leohnard or Landry, but it would be nice to bring back one starting safety at a reasonable price. The Ravens would be well-served to either re-sign Brown or use the franchise tag to keep him, as he's arguably the most important offensive lineman on the team.
What the Ravens will do about linebacker is anyone's guess. It's hard to imagine them bringing back all three - particularly when the Ravens have several adequate young linebackers, too (Tavares Gooden, Jameel McClain, Antwan Barnes, Nick Griesen). Of the 3, Suggs would appear to have the most value - he's entering the prime of his career, he led the league in negative plays this year, and he is definitely the Ravens' best pash-rusher. Lewis played extremely well this year and is the clear leader of the team, but he is older. Suggs says he wants to say, Lewis says he's willing to look around. Scott, it would seem, is a back-up plan if the Ravens lose Lewis (not so much with Suggs).
It would be great to keep Ray Lewis, but if someone makes him a Godfather offer (you know, one he can't refuse), then who knows. It would not be cool to see Ray as a Cowboy or a Jet (or, heaven forfend, a Patriot or a Steeler). And it's much harder to predict how the team would react to losing Lewis than any other player (which is why even though Suggs might be a better player on the field over the next 3 years, Lewis still might be more important overall).
The Ravens could also release some players. I would assume Chris McAlister will be gone. It's also possible the Ravens would release (or more likely restructure) Samari Rolle, Todd Heap (it was never all that clear how he fit into Cam Cameron's offense, but he did play better in the second half), or Willis McGahee (although his cap number is the same whether they keep him or not, plus he was outstanding in the Pittsburgh game).
As for other free agents, it would be great if the Ravens could add a playmaker on offense, especially wide receiver. There aren't really any great receivers available - TJ Houshmanzadeh is probably the best, but there's likely a lot of competition for him, and after that the pickings are slim. The Ravens will probably have to lean on the draft for some help, although whether they can get an impact player for this year will be a big question, especially picking so late in the first and second rounds. Wide receiver, cornerback, and depth on the offensive and defensive lines are the biggest need areas.
2. Free agency: The Ravens have really 6 key free agents: Ray Lewis, Terrell Suggs, Bart Scott, Jason Brown, Jim Leohnard, and Dawan Landry. I don't know whether the Ravens will keep either Leohnard or Landry, but it would be nice to bring back one starting safety at a reasonable price. The Ravens would be well-served to either re-sign Brown or use the franchise tag to keep him, as he's arguably the most important offensive lineman on the team.
What the Ravens will do about linebacker is anyone's guess. It's hard to imagine them bringing back all three - particularly when the Ravens have several adequate young linebackers, too (Tavares Gooden, Jameel McClain, Antwan Barnes, Nick Griesen). Of the 3, Suggs would appear to have the most value - he's entering the prime of his career, he led the league in negative plays this year, and he is definitely the Ravens' best pash-rusher. Lewis played extremely well this year and is the clear leader of the team, but he is older. Suggs says he wants to say, Lewis says he's willing to look around. Scott, it would seem, is a back-up plan if the Ravens lose Lewis (not so much with Suggs).
It would be great to keep Ray Lewis, but if someone makes him a Godfather offer (you know, one he can't refuse), then who knows. It would not be cool to see Ray as a Cowboy or a Jet (or, heaven forfend, a Patriot or a Steeler). And it's much harder to predict how the team would react to losing Lewis than any other player (which is why even though Suggs might be a better player on the field over the next 3 years, Lewis still might be more important overall).
The Ravens could also release some players. I would assume Chris McAlister will be gone. It's also possible the Ravens would release (or more likely restructure) Samari Rolle, Todd Heap (it was never all that clear how he fit into Cam Cameron's offense, but he did play better in the second half), or Willis McGahee (although his cap number is the same whether they keep him or not, plus he was outstanding in the Pittsburgh game).
As for other free agents, it would be great if the Ravens could add a playmaker on offense, especially wide receiver. There aren't really any great receivers available - TJ Houshmanzadeh is probably the best, but there's likely a lot of competition for him, and after that the pickings are slim. The Ravens will probably have to lean on the draft for some help, although whether they can get an impact player for this year will be a big question, especially picking so late in the first and second rounds. Wide receiver, cornerback, and depth on the offensive and defensive lines are the biggest need areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)