Stay Up To Date

Policy Points

24.11.2010 Policy Points Comments Off on NC Unemployment Claims: Week of 11/6

NC Unemployment Claims: Week of 11/6

For the benefit week ending on November 6th, 13,564 North Carolinians filed initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits, and 117,556 individuals applied for state-funded continuing benefits. Compared to the prior week, there were fewer initial and more continuing claims. These figures come from data released by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Averaging new and continuing claims over a four-week period — a process that helps adjust for seasonal fluctuations and better illustrates trends — shows that an average of 13,776 initial claims were filed over the previous four weeks, along with an average of 116,460 continuing claims. Compared to the previous four-week period, there were more initial and continuing claims.

One year ago, the four-week average for initial claims stood at 18,048 and the four-week average of continuing claims equaled 180,045.

While the number of claims has dropped over the past year, so has covered employment. Last week, covered employment totaled 3.7 million, down from 4 million a year ago.

The graph (right) shows the changes in unemployment insurance claims (as a share of covered employment) in North Carolina since the recession’s start in December 2007.

Both new and continuing claims appear to have peaked for this business cycle, and the four-week averages of new and continuing claims have fallen considerably. Yet continuing claims remain at an elevated level, which suggests that unemployed individuals are finding it difficult to find new positions.

Also, little change has occurred within recent months. Since April 2010, the four-week average of initial claims consistently has ranged between 14,075 and 11,200.

24.11.2010 Policy Points Comments Off on A Turkey Of A Tax Break

A Turkey Of A Tax Break

The New Republic points out that the mortgage-interest deduction is a broad middle-class tax break only if the middle class is defined as the top 20 percent of households.

If we get rid of the mortgage-interest deduction, about 22 percent of people in the 40ththrough 60th income percentiles will pay higher taxes —on average $215 a year, or about half a percent of current after-tax income. For those in the 60th through 80th percentiles, only 45 percent would see their taxes go up—by an average $689, about 1 percent of after-tax income. While there are tax hikes, they’re fairly small in relative terms, and what’s more, less than half of people in these income groups would have to pay them. And below the 40th percentile, almost no one would be affected by repealing the mortgage-interest deduction.
…
The impact is more substantial farther up the earnings ladder. In the 90th through 95thpercentiles, for example, 74 percent of people would see their taxes rise, costing them an additional $2,643 per year on average, about 1.75 percent of their after-tax income. It’s true that repealing the deduction would (in relative terms) have only a small impact on the top 1 percent of earners, but that’s largely because, as AaronW noted in the comments thread, “for the truly wealthy, mortgage debt is a much smaller proportion of their income than for middle income earners.”

23.11.2010 Policy Points Comments Off on Around The Dial – Nov. 23

Around The Dial – Nov. 23

Economic policy reports, blog postings, and media stories of interest:

23.11.2010 Policy Points Comments Off on The Politics Of For-Profit Colleges

The Politics Of For-Profit Colleges

A recent report on National Public Radio looked at the political, policy, and regulatory issues surrounding the growing field of for-profit higher education.

Click here to listen to the story.

23.11.2010 Policy Points Comments Off on A Defense Of Quantitative Easing

A Defense Of Quantitative Easing

A recent segment on The PBS NewsHour reported on the rationale underlying the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing and the international criticisms being leveled against the approach. Note the discussion about the need for greater fiscal policy action.