OH-2 Special Election Coverage and Prediction thread...

[jimrtex]

This is the Hamilton County board of elections site, but it appears that they are set up to collate the results from all counties in the district.  It is kind of flaky.

HBOE

[jimrtex]

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 14676 52.00%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 13549 48.00%

Registered Voters - 2ND CONG DIST 456161
Ballots Cast - 2ND CONG DIST 28225 6.19%
PRC CNT - 2ND CONG -753- 190 25.23%
PRC CNT - ADAMS CO. -35- 12 34.29%
PRC CNT - BROWN CO. -35- 18 51.43%
PRC CNT - CLERMONT CO. -191- 0 0.00%
PRC CNT - HAMILTON CO. -342- 64 18.71%
PRC CNT - PIKE CO. -24- 12 50.00%
PRC CNT - SCIOTO CO. -70- 50 71.43%
PRC CNT - WARREN CO. -79- 39 49.37%

[jimrtex]

245 of 753% (but zero of 191 from Clermont County)

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 18476 51.99%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 17064 48.01%

[jimrtex]

I'm guessing Clermont is heavily GOP, that's why the results are distorted?

In 2004, Bush was over 70% in Clermont and Warren, mind 60s in Adams and Brown, just over 50% in Pike and Scioto, and just over 50% in Hamilton (these are countywide, rather than portions in district).

[jimrtex]

642/753 precincts.

Still Out

91 of 191 in Clremont
20 of 70 in Scioto

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 46265 48.95%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 48256 51.05%

[jimrtex]

662/753 precincts.

Still Out

91 of 191 in Clremont

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 48811 49.56%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 49681 50.44%

Note: all votes since last update were from Scioto County.

[jimrtex]

Results are in, Schmidt wins by 4000 votes, which is outside the margin which would trigger a recount, though I wouldn't be surprised if Dems gather up enough money to call one.  With the machines completely dying in clermont, there will be investigations, but unless someone finds 5000 extra votes in a closet somewhere, it's time to move on to 2006.  Final result, 52% to 48%, Schmidt.

There were a couple of write-in candidates.  One with 10 votes and another with 3 votes.  Maybe they'll want the recount.  

[jimrtex]

Yup. What jumps out at me most is how badly she got walloped in those eatern counties that I guess the one before her (a bit tired, so I'm starting to draw blanks on names) won with 70% or so.

There is a very strong Republican to Democrat trend across the district.  Bush carried Clermont and Warren counties (Cincinnatti suburbs) by 70%+; Brown and Adams in the mid 60s (Brown appears to have a bit of Cincinnati fringe growth); and Scioto and Pike in the 50s.   Pike is a small county that has had a little bit of growth (perhaps recreation or retirement), while Scioto (Portsmouth) has had up and down population since the 1930s, but down about 10% since 1980.  Hamilton (Cincinnati) was in the low 50s also, but the 2nd district is the more suburban part so was probably stronger for Bush.

Turnout may have been relatively higher in the eastern area the further you get from Cincinnati.  The media is going to concentrate less on a race that is of interest to only part of their audience; there are more non-political distractions; and it is more effort to vote if you are commuting.

[jimrtex]

First off, EVERYBODY pays the Social Security tax on their first 87,900 of wages/self-employment income. So yes, the poor DO pay Social Security tax.

It is impossible for a government insurance program to provide a retirement benefit anywhere near $90,000.  So the government should be up front to high income people that they should not expect SS to maintain their current lifestyle into retirement.  Either they are going to have invest in their own future, or expect a drastic drop in spending when they retire.

So it is a lie that this increased tax is going for their retirement.  And to the extent that it does, it will increase the drawdown of the trust fund which will have to paid out from general revenues.  

So you are going to add 10% or more to the marginal tax rate of people with earned income (put not those who run hedge funds or get royalties from movies) promising that they will be paid back with interest when they retire.  But they won't be getting the money back, and will likely have to pay more in income taxes when they retire.

It would be better to increase the tax rate on the first $20,000 (this can be done entirely on the employer-paid portion, while maintaining the current minimum wage).  Then the FICA tax above $20,000 should be made entirely optional.

Government counselors would be available to explain the program and to certify coverage of employees.

[jimrtex]

in the 1980s when reagan enacted his intial tax cut in 1981 on the wealthiest taxpayers

The marginal rate on $35,000 in 1981 was 50%.   On top of this was FICA, so figure another 15%.  State income tax at 6%, and then sales tax on any of the 30% that remained.  Remember this was a period of hyperinflation, so that if one fortunate to keep up with inflation in pre-tax dollars, it was nowhere close to keeping up after taxes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

That is a good point...to the extent that social security is a viable social insurance program rather than a welfare program, its tax structure can not be overly progressive...

However, it is problematic that someone making say 70,000 may pay a higher % of income in taxes that someone at 100000... perhaps the income tax rates needed to be adjusted accordingly...

No more a problem than someone who makes $70,000 pays a higher percentage of their income for the same level of housing and food.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 50% bracket actually began at $35,100.  There was a Statistical Abstract that showed income tax rates over time at different income levels, which happened to show the bracket at $35,000, which was at the very top of the lower rate bracket.

The Reagan tax cuts were phased in over 3 years.  If you consider ongoing inflation, it wasn't until the 3rd year that the amount of taxes paid in inflation adjusted dollars actually produced a real tax cut, and it was relatively small.

Congress used to periodically increase the tax brackets to compensate for inflation.  They could then announce a tax cut.  Now that deductions and tax brackets are indexed for the most part, they don't get to tinker in that way.

[jimrtex]

Like I said, I'm going to get an authoratative answer from a tax laywer I know. If I'm totally wrong, I'll say so. But I think this is more complicated than you are letting on, because SS is NOT paid individually-- I guess it still could be taxed individually but, if so, a lot of people are paying in money with no chance of ever seeing a dime of it. Withholding is different from actually paying the tax.

An argument can be made that FICA should be calculated jointly, since SS benefits certainly are.

If someone works multiple jobs during a year, such that their total earnings are over the cap, they are refunded the excess portion of employee paid FICA taxes (the government keeps the excess employer-paid taxes).  The refund would reduce the joint income tax liablity of a couple.  But on the other hand, if the employee had worked at only one job during the year, once they reached the cap, their increased take home pay would presumably be of joint use.