5 Burst results for "Michael Gratz"

"michael gratz" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

02:37 min | 1 year ago

"michael gratz" Discussed on KCRW

"The bipartisan infrastructure deal appears on again after running into some trouble over the weekend wrinkle was the president Biden suggested he wouldn't sign the $1 trillion deal unless a separate bill also comes to his desk, which Republicans don't like marketplaces. Nova Sappho is keeping track of it. The deal between Republicans and the White House's for spending on physical infrastructure like transportation projects. Republicans oppose a second spending plan covering things like eldercare and childcare. Democrats hope to pass that larger package through parliamentary maneuver that won't require Republican votes. But Biden appeared to tie the fates of the two bills together. Here's what he said after announcing the bipartisan deal. But if only one comes to me, I'm not. If this is the only man that comes me, I'm not signing. It's in tandem. Republicans said that comment threatened to undermine their bipartisan agreement. On Saturday, Biden put out a statement walking back his comments, saying he had not intended to issue a veto threat. That appeared enough for Republican senators who told various Sunday morning talk shows that the deal on physical infrastructure was back on. I'm nervous, awful for marketplace. That infrastructure bill itself is also an investment in human capital marketplaces. Mitchell Hartman has that President Biden promises millions of good paying new infrastructure jobs. Columbia law professor and former Treasury official Michael Gratz says not quite as many jobs as in the president's original, more expensive proposals, but still it's a very, very large package compared to what we're used to, and it comes at a crucial moment, says Manny Rodrigues at Revolution Workshop in Chicago. With millions of skilled blue collar workers, many of them older, white men close to retirement. There's going to be enough money for a generation worth of projects and all the different trades from laborers, the carpenters to ironworkers, slow builder, you know, heavy equipment operators. The list goes on. Rodriguezes organization trains minority workers for construction jobs, and we've got to make sure that black brown and women have clear access to these family sustaining career pathways. He says there needs to be money for workforce, training and education in the infrastructure mix. I'm Mitchell Hartman for Marketplace. This Friday morning is the big hiring and unemployment reports for June. The professionals are thinking there could be 700,000 more people on payrolls this month. That would be a strong increase. We'll see. Let's do the numbers. The Dow is down 4 10% 132 points. The S and P 500 is up three points. The NASDAQ composite is.

Manny Rodrigues Michael Gratz Mitchell Hartman $1 trillion Saturday 700,000 June Sunday morning Chicago Democrats White House two bills 4 10% Nova Sappho Republicans Republican three points Biden President NASDAQ
"michael gratz" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:25 min | 1 year ago

"michael gratz" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The bipartisan infrastructure deal appears on again after running into trouble over the weekend. The wrinkle was president Biden suggesting he won't sign the $1 trillion deal unless a separate bill also comes to his desk, which Republicans opposed Marketplaces Nova Sappho is keeping track of this. The deal between Republicans and the White House's for spending on physical infrastructure like transportation projects. Republicans oppose a second spending plan covering things like eldercare and childcare. Democrats hope to pass that larger package through parliamentary maneuver that won't require Republican votes. But Biden appeared to tie the fates of the two bills together. Here's what he said after announcing the bipartisan deal. But if only one comes to me, I'm not. This is the only thing that comes me. I'm not signing. It's in tandem. Republicans said that comment threatened to undermine their bipartisan agreement. On Saturday, Biden put out a statement walking back his comments, saying he had not intended to issue a veto threat. That appeared enough for Republican senators who told various Sunday morning talk shows that the deal on physical infrastructure was back on. I'm nervous, awful for marketplace. Now that infrastructure bill itself is also an investment in human capital marketplaces. Mitchell Hartman has that President Biden promises millions of good paying new infrastructure jobs. Columbia law professor and former Treasury official, Michael Gratz says not quite as many jobs as in the president's original, more expensive proposals, but still it's a very, very large package compared to what we're used to, and it comes at a crucial moment, says Manny Rodrigues, that Revolution Workshop in Chicago with millions of skilled blue collar workers, many of them older, white men close to retirement. There's going to be enough money for a generation worth of projects and all the different trades from laborers the carpenters to hire workers. Slow builder, you know heavy equipment operators. The list goes on. Rodriguez. This organization trains minority workers for construction jobs, and we've got to make sure that black brown and women have clear access to these family sustaining career pathways. He says there needs to be money for workforce, training and education in the infrastructure mix. I'm Mitchell Hartman for Marketplace. Let's do the numbers. The Dow future is down. 14 points a tad the S and P future is up 1/10 percent,.

Michael Gratz Mitchell Hartman $1 trillion Manny Rodrigues Saturday 14 points Sunday morning Chicago White House Democrats two bills Rodriguez Republican Republicans 1/10 percent President Nova Sappho Biden Revolution Workshop millions
"michael gratz" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

02:30 min | 1 year ago

"michael gratz" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"The bipartisan infrastructure deal appears on again after running into some trouble over the weekend. The wrinkle was president Biden suggesting he would not sign the $1 trillion deal unless a separate bill also comes to his desk, which Republicans oppose. Marketplaces. Nova Sappho is keeping track of this. President Biden reached a deal with Republicans on a narrow portion of his proposed $4 billion in infrastructure and other spending. The agreement covered physical infrastructures, such as transportation projects. But Biden appeared to tie signing that deal to another larger spending package. He's called human infrastructure, which Democrats hope to pass without Republican votes through a budgetary maneuver. Here's what Biden told reporters about the bipartisan bill. But if only one comes to me, I'm not. If this is the only thing that comes to me, I'm not signing. It's in tandem. Republicans said that comment threatened to undermine the deal because they oppose the second larger spending plan covering things like eldercare and childcare. By Saturday, Biden put out a statement walking back his comments, saying he had not intended to issue a veto threat that appeared enough for Republican senators who told various Sunday morning talk shows that the deal was back on. I'm nervous offer for marketplace. Now The infrastructure bill itself is also an investment in human capital marketplaces. Mitchell apartment has that President Biden promises millions of good paying new infrastructure jobs. Columbia law professor and former Treasury official, Michael Gratz says not quite as many jobs as in the president's original, more expensive proposals, but still it's a very, very large package compared to what we're used to. And it comes at a crucial moment, says Manny Rodrigues, That Revolution workshop in Chicago with millions of skilled blue collar workers, many of them older white men close to retirement. There's going to be enough money for a generation worth of projects and all the different trades from laborers, the carpenters to ironworkers, low builders, You know heavy equipment operators. The list goes on. Rodriguezes organization trains minority workers for construction jobs, and we've got to make sure that black brown and women have clear access to these family sustaining career pathways. He says there needs to be money for workforce, training and education in the infrastructure mix. I'm natural Hartman for Marketplace. Let's do the numbers mixed. The Dow future is down 57 points.

Michael Gratz $1 trillion Manny Rodrigues $4 billion 57 points Saturday Chicago Sunday morning Democrats Republican Republicans President president Nova Sappho Rodriguezes millions of skilled blue colla one Biden Hartman millions
"michael gratz" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:05 min | 2 years ago

"michael gratz" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"For the Biden administration's views on the state against state clash over billions of dollars in income taxes paid by people working from home during the covert 19 pandemic. New Hampshire wants to sue directly at the High Court to challenge Massachusetts practice of taxing non residents who used to work in the state but now do their jobs at home. Joining me is Michael Grads, a professor Columbia law school. Michael tell us about the central issue here. Well, there really two legal issues. One has to do with whether the court will take the case That is that our whole three of the Constitution creates a naughty Matic hearing in the Supreme Court to resolve a controversy between two or more states. And if this is in fact that in the court would have to take the case, although I don't believe that it calls within Article three. And so I think the court has discretions toe letter will hear this case. If it does hear the case, the issue is really commerce Clause issue in a burden on interstate travel or interstate commerce. Although you could find other places in the Constitution are this case from Let's talk first about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. And why you think this may not be a case? The court has to take well the classic example going back a long way. One state says that along the border, this piece of land or this much of a river is within that state's boundaries. And another state, so I don't know It's our land. Where river then that would be a classic case where the Supreme Court would have to resolve this feud between the states. But hear what we were gonna be talking about is a problem of taxation, which is claimed by individuals that one state is over taxing them. Even though the states themselves after the Chase is claiming that it's gonna lose a lot of revenue as a result of this, because it gives a credit for the Massachusetts taxes or in the case of the Tri State area, we would be talking about New Jersey and Connecticut, complaining that they're giving credits for New York taxes and New York is overreaching. But whether that's really within the original jurisdiction under Article three I think there's some doubt about that. But the court gets to the side. It's interpretation of articles three. And if the court doesn't want to take the case, I think it has a basis for saying that this is about of Article three case, But instead it's a dispute between taxpayers and two states and who should be collecting their taxes. And that's a case that the taxpayers need to bring. And it's a case that the court may or may not want to hear over. The court may decide that because of the revenue that's a state. New Hampshire has a right to be heard on the case and maybe a priority, although I think that may be a stretch, but it's not an original jurisdiction Cake Under Article three. The court refused the case where Texas were suing Pennsylvania over the elections. How difficult is it to get the court to get involved in states disputes through its original jurisdiction? On the court doesn't like to be called that it must take a case. And so it all for the asks whether this is really a case of original jurisdiction, and it wants to limit those kinds of cases. That lawsuit that was filed by the Texas train general about voting in Pennsylvania really present. I think the clearest example of the kind of case that was Supreme Court certainly doesn't want to take and absolutely doesn't want to say they have to take your Article three. So I mean, that's a good example of a case where the Supreme Court really didn't want to hear it. And just because it was the suit by taxes against Pennsylvania. Doesn't mean that it's a genuine conflict between the states. Texas was just claiming that Pennsylvania got its voting system on and here in New Hampshire is disclaiming Massachusetts, the status tax system wrong and is being taken constitutional and in its exercise that it's taxing collar. So I think this is the case that the court and if it wants to, it could also say it's not original jurisdiction taste, but we're going to hear it. We're gonna grant a search Ferreri and take the case because New Hampshire There's a proper party to such a suit, and it makes sense to go ahead and hear it sooner rather than later. A taxpayer during the case record, which is the normal way in which these state tax cases Get to the court. But this is not a coral. I think that's going to be anxious to get to a decision earlier rather than later or creative precedent where state can be a party in the lawsuit that really involves a dispute between an individual and the two states that air imposing taxes on her. So ignoring the jurisdiction question and just looking at the substantive issue. Which state has the better argument? I think Massachusetts is more likely to wear just based on the presidents of the Supreme Court in allowing states a lot of flexibility about taxing income that the state regards as having earned in their state because the employers in that state, so I think it's a long shot for the residents of New Hampshire to win this case. Why do you think the Supreme Court Asked the acting solicitor general, for her opinion, Well, right, think what they like to hear from the solicitor general is that this is not about a whole three case of original jurisdiction, which the court must here and that would been bolster decision not to hear the case, and the poster general's office historically has thought to be Thoughtful and take into account institutional kinds of concerns. Thanks, Michael. That's Michael Gratz of Columbia Law School. Coming up next. Biden's deportation moratorium hits a Texas road block. You're listening to Bloomberg. You've probably heard the work slack.

Supreme Court New Hampshire High Court Massachusetts Texas Pennsylvania Michael Columbia law school Biden administration Michael Grads professor Michael Gratz New York Biden New Jersey Bloomberg Ferreri Connecticut
"michael gratz" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:01 min | 2 years ago

"michael gratz" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"I've been talking to Professor Michael Gratz of Columbia Law School about the Supreme Court, asking the acting solicitor general for her views on the New Hampshire versus Massachusetts clash over billions of dollars in income taxes paid by people who work from home during the covert 19 pandemic. So let's go back to U SE. A commerce Clause argument. What is New Hampshire's basic argument? Why is it suing Massachusetts? Well, it's basically Syria on the ground that Massachusetts is imposing a tax. On New Hampshire residents who were not working in Massachusetts. They're doing room their work in New Hampshire now there may be doing it. Our employer who's in Massachusetts, in which case New Hampshire's likely will lose that case based on prior precedent, but past the client, the claim is that New Hampshire's residents are being discriminated against because Massachusetts is over reaching its tax and client. Well, that's what sort of hit me is because it seems from reading this. These air employees who were working in Massachusetts and then because of Cove ID, you know they started working from their homes in New Hampshire. So if they're working for a Massachusetts company, you think that Massachusetts has a better case. Think Massachusetts has a pretty strong case. And those of us who live in the Tri State area know that New York certainly has, for a long time taxed residents of New Jersey or Connecticut on the income they are on New York employers. And New York certainly will come into this case on the side of Massachusetts if the court takes the case. No. Massachusetts made this argument. Basically, this is an emergency measure. Let's just do this until we see what shakes out with Cove. It. Is that a good argument. Well, it depends on whose side you're on it. That situation is obviously concerned. That at a time when the economy is struggling People are able now to work for Massachusetts employers outside of Massachusetts of your capture. A lot of people live across the border in their Hampshire to avoid income taxes on their other end, job and other taxes. They're Haftar's notoriously light taxation, state and Massachusetts back in the old days used to be called tax issues that they have a reputation of their higher on the R Ohio tax state. So Massachusetts is concerned that all these people are not gonna claim that they're not working in Massachusetts coming to Massachusetts and therefore mass adjusts can't tax them. And you know, the usual rule is that the states have is that you're treated as being taxable of the statutory resident of the state of your there more than 183 days, more than half a year. And here. People who may have been routinely there impassive to six more than half a year, finding themselves spending little or no time in Massachusetts because they've left and they're not coming back until the coded emergency is behind us. Just some ways in the future, and Massachusetts obviously concerned that they may lose a lot of revenue for two or three years, but that's kind of Right people back to work. And, of course, the other problem is that given the fact that people like working at home, at least the ones they don't have young Children. We're not in school. You know, many mean that more and more companies find that profitable to have people work from home rather than leasing or owning office space. But in Massachusetts, so this pandemic is a long term threat. Tonto longstanding work relationships. Kind of court take into account. I mean, let's say, For example, New Jersey estimates it will credit as much as $1.2 billion to its residents for income taxes paid to New York in the 12 months, starting in March, 2020 Can the court take into account in any way the billions of dollars that some of these states will be losing, or is that peripheral? Well, I don't know. I mean, I haven't looked at the numbers and so I don't know whether New Jersey is telling you if that's the total credit, wonder what they've been accrediting before the pantheon that there a lot of New Jersey residents who are working in New York as we all know well. And the Jersey has been crediting New York taxes on on salaries that people are in New York for very long times. All right under whether this is an additional 1.2 billion, or whether it But they've been we're includes what they've been doing all along, but I'm sure the numbers are large. Um, but I think that you know it. The beast in the tri State area and the Massachusetts New Hampshire order. Uh, The area surrounding the District of Columbia. Quite common for people to work in one jurisdiction and live in another jurisdiction. And so that's not a new problem. And there's a Supreme Court juris prudence on that. The basic rule is that you can't treat the out of state or worse than you treat the interstate er The doctrine is that the state can't be internally inconsistent in state announced a press But I would say that New York would say what? We're taxing our in state residents on your salary, not we're gonna discriminating against out of staters. So ignoring the jurisdiction question and just looking at the substantive issue. Which state has the better argument? I'd rather answer the question. Which state is more likely the win If the court takes the case, and I think Massachusetts is more likely the winner just based on the presidents of the Supreme Court in allowing states A lot of flexibility about taxing income that the state regards as having earned in their.

Massachusetts New Hampshire New York Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey Supreme Court tri State Syria Professor Michael Gratz Columbia Law School District of Columbia Ohio Tonto Haftar Connecticut