Taxes

Poverty of redistribution liberalism

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 22/11/2017 - 1:00am in

distribution

Liberals have a problem: the kinds of redistribution they advocate and support just doesn’t do a lot to fundamentally alter the profoundly unequal distribution of income in the United States.

Consider the chart above, which illustrates the cash-income effects of the U.S. tax system (with dark colors marking the pre-tax distribution of income and the lighter colors the post-tax distribution). The results are quite meager: in 2014, the share of the top 1 percent (blue lines, measured on the right) was only lowered from 20.2 percent to 17 percent, while the share of the bottom 90 percent (plum lines, measured on the left) rose from 53 percent to just 59.2 percent.

So, even after all the tax-based redistributions are completed, the top 1 percent still ends up with a larger and larger share of income—and the share left over for the bottom 90 percent continues to fall.

All of that political fighting over tax rates and government programs to ameliorate the unequalizing effects of American capitalism and that’s all we end up with.

It should come as no surprise then that Isabel Sawhill [ht: ja] concludes that changing the tax structure, even radically, won’t really change much.

Sawhill’s analysis of both the political hurdles and the limited benefits of progressives’ favorite tax-and-spend schemes is certainly accurate. Existing economic institutions produce such an obscenely unequal distribution of income in the United States that it’s difficult to envision any political feasible changes in the tax structure that will bring down inequality into a region that progressives would consider fair and just.

So, what’s the alternative? Sawhill favors “stakeholder capitalism” (or what others have called “shared capitalism”):

It means paying attention not just to shareholders but also to workers, customers, and the community. It has proven to be a successful strategy for many companies. They have showcased what can be accomplished when the private sector takes greater responsibility for helping workers—whether in the form of profit sharing, training, or providing benefits such as paid leave and flexible hours. The fact is that without such an approach, it will be difficult to achieve broadly based economic growth. It would simply require too much redistribution after the fact. We need instead to test the limits of equalizing the distribution of market incomes before taxes and benefits enter the picture.

And perhaps Sawhill and other American liberals can convince employers to become “high-road,” stakeholder employers instead of taking the “low-road” of the shareholder economy.

Perhaps. But why does Sawhill limit the discussion to the choices existing employers might or might not want to make? Why not open up the discussion to consider other ways of organizing enterprises?*

I’m thinking, for example, of worker cooperatives and other kinds of enterprises owned by workers and the communities in which they live. If we think the existing distribution of income is fundamentally unjust and redistributive efforts are generally limited and ineffective—both of which are arguments that Sawhill herself makes—then why not focus on ways of actually improving the initial distribution without requiring the assent of existing employers?

The advantage of worker- and community-owned enterprises is they include the stakeholders from the very start. The stakeholders are the ones who decide how the firms will be organized, what the workers will be paid, how the surplus funds will be allocated, and so on. And from all the existing examples we have, from Cleveland’s Evergreen to Spain’s Mondragón, the initial distribution of income would be much more equal than anything we’ve seen, not only in the past few decades, but over the entire modern history of the United States.

Then, on top of that, people might want to have a tax-based redistributive scheme—for example, to correct for differences in enterprise success, regional discrepancies, and so on. But such redistribution would be much easier and more effective than anything Sawhill and others envision for the United States today. It just wouldn’t have an enormous mountain of inequality to dismantle.

So, while I agree with Sawhill that “our failure to achieve anything close to broadly based economic growth in the United States is very troubling,” I want to expand the discussion and see a much bigger role for alternatives to capitalism in distributing the rewards to workers and the members of the communities in which they live.

That one change, in the direction of more worker- and community-owned enterprises, can serve as the basis of an economy that would produce an array of incomes that brings us much closer to an initial distribution that many progressives consider fair and just.

 

*As Penn Loh explains,

Too often “the economy” is equated with markets where corporations compete to make profits for the wealthiest 1 percent and the rest work for a wage or salary (or don’t make money at all). . .

When everything that we label “economic” is assumed to be capitalist — transactional and market-driven — then it is no wonder that we run short on imagination.

To escape this “capitalocentrism,” we need to broaden the definition of economy beyond capitalism.

Tagged: capitalism, community, distribution, enterprises, inequality, redistribution, taxes, worker-ownership

Saez and Zucman on the Republican Tax Plan

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 21/11/2017 - 7:12am in

Tags 

Economics, Taxes

Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman:

Republican tax plan slams workers and job creators in favor of the rich and inherited wealth, by Emmanuel Saez & Gabriel Zucman: The tax plan released by Republicans in Congress and praised by President Donald Trump is a remarkable document in many ways, but most notably in that it achieves the opposite of its stated goal. Presented as a tax cut for workers and job-creating entrepreneurs, it is instead a giant tax cut for the rich and inherited wealth.

First,...

Letter to the Editor: My State Cut Taxes and We’ve Never Recovered

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 21/11/2017 - 6:23am in

Following the release of the Republican tax plan, Travis Rakes, a resident of Oklahoma, wrote in with his thoughts. In Oklahoma wealthy industries have profited from a draconian tax cut that has led to large cuts to necessary public services, such as public schools. His letter to the editor has been lightly edited.

 
As a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, I can offer very little hope in the promises of the national GOP tax plan based on the current results of the statewide tax cuts in Oklahoma four years ago.

We were offered many of the same promises of job growth, wage growth and better opportunities.

We were offered many of the same promises of job growth, wage growth and better opportunities. The results have been quite depressing.

We have near the lowest teacher pay and educational success grades and the current legislature is faced with cutting nearly all services for regular Oklahomans. In spite of this there is no talk of correcting the budget problems with thoughtful and practical revenue solutions.

I fear the long game nationally will follow the template set by states like mine. That is, cut revenue to benefit top earners, which is then compensated by cutting vital services to health care, environmental safety, education and social safety nets.

What is so perplexing to me is that people facing such hardship elected the current national and state representatives as well as Donald Trump. They are all actively planning and implementing legislation and policy that will only further their hardship.

I seem to differ from the current GOP political movement in that I believe government serves as a responsible partner and mediator in many aspects of public life — such as education, health care, worker protections, environmental protection and public safety — in order to ensure freedom, justice and equal opportunity for the most vulnerable in society.

The GOP seems to operate on the belief that if more freedom is given to the entities with power, corporations and those with wealth, justice and opportunity will result. I’m certainly not convinced.

— Travis Rakes, Bartlesville, OK

 
 
If you’re a serious reader of our website and have something you would like to say, Bill would like to hear from you. We’ll choose letters on an occasional basis as they seem relevant to an issue we have been following. Please keep your letter to a reasonable length. Email us at yourturn [at] billmoyers [dot] com.

The post Letter to the Editor: My State Cut Taxes and We’ve Never Recovered appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

Prosperity Through Keystrokes: Understanding Federal Spending

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 19/11/2017 - 2:00am in

Above photo: From CNN Money. Google is blocking our site. Please use the social media sharing buttons (upper left) to share this on your social media and help us break through. Progressives Trigger warning: Compassion required. When is the last time you heard Greens, Berniecrats or Indie voters not acknowledge the distinct and pressing need for election reform, campaign finance reform, voting reform? More to the point, when haven’t they mentioned unleashing third parties from the fringe of irrelevancy and up on to the debate stage? That is mostly what is talked about, simply because it is low hanging fruit. It has long been known that our electoral system and methods of voting are corrupt, untrustworthy, and easily manipulated by less than savvy politicians, state actors, and hackers alike. The answers to many of these issues is the same answer that we would need to push for any progressive reforms to take place in the United States: namely, we need enlightened, fiery, peaceful, and committed activists to propel a movement and ensure that the people rise, face their oppressors, and unify to demand that their needs be met. What is not as well-known, however, is how a movement, the government, and taxes work together to bring about massive changes in programs, new spending, and the always scary “National Debt” (should be “National Assets”, but I will speak to that later). In fact, this subject is so poorly understood by many well-meaning people on all sides of the aisle that these issues are the most important we face as a nation. Until we understand them and have the confidence and precision necessary to destroy the myths and legends we have substituted in the absence of truth and knowledge, it must remain front and center to the movement. Progressives, like most people in the U.S., are almost religiously attached to the terms “the tax payer dollar,” and the idea that their “hard earned tax dollars” are being misappropriated. Often, the most difficult pill for people to swallow is the concept that our Federal Government is self-funding and creates the very money it “spends”. It isn’t spending your tax dollars at all. To demonstrate this, consider this simplified flow chart: These truths bring on even more hand wringing, because to the average voter they raise the issue of where taxes, tax revenue, government borrowing, and the misleading idea of the “National Debt” (which is nothing more than the sum of every single not yet taxed federal high-powered dollar in existence) fit into the federal spending picture. The answer is that they really don’t. A terrible deception has been perpetrated on the people. We have been led to believe that the U.S. borrows its own currency from foreign nations, that the money gathered from borrowing and collected from taxing funds federal spending. We have also been led to believe that gold is somehow the only real currency, that somehow our nation is broke because we don’t own much gold compared to the money we create, and that we are on the precipice of some massive collapse, etc. because of that shortage of gold. People in the United States have been taught single entry accounting instead of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, or GAAP-approved double entry accounting, where every single asset has a corresponding liability; which means that every single dollar has a corresponding legal commitment. Every single dollar by accounting identity is nothing more than a tax credit waiting to be extinguished.  Sadly, many only see the government, the actual dollar creator, as having debt; that it has liabilities, not that we the people have assets; assets that we need more and more of as time goes on, to achieve any semblance of personal freedom and relative security from harm. In other words, at the Federal level it is neither your tax dollars nor the dollars collected from sales of Treasury debt instruments that are spent. Every single dollar the Federal Government spends is new money. Every dollar is keystroked into existence. Every single one of them. Which brings up the next question: “Where do our hard-earned tax dollars and borrowed dollars go if, in fact, they do not pay for spending on roads, schools, bombs and propaganda?” We already know the answer. They are destroyed by the Federal Reserve when they mark down the Treasury’s accounts. In Professor Stephanie Kelton’s article in the LA Times “Congress can give every American a pony (if it breeds enough ponies).” She states quite plainly: “Whoa, cowboy! Are you telling me that the government can just make money appear out of nowhere, like magic? Absolutely. Congress has special powers: It’s the patent-holder on the U.S. dollar. No one else is legally allowed to create it. This means that Congress can always afford the pony because it can always create the money to pay for it.” That alone should raise eye brows and cause you to reconsider a great many things you may have once thought. It will possibly cause you to fall back to old, neoclassical text book understandings as well, which she deftly anticipates and answers with: “Now, that doesn’t mean the government can buy absolutely anything it wants in absolutely any quantity at absolutely any speed. (Say, a pony for each of the 320 million men, women and children in the United States, by tomorrow.) That’s because our economy has internal limits. If the government tries to buy too much of something, it will drive up prices as the economy struggles to keep up with the demand. Inflation can spiral out of control. There are plenty of ways for the government to get a handle on inflation, though. For example, it can take money out of the economy through taxation.” And there it is. The limitation everyone is wondering about. Where is the spending limit? When we run out of real resources. Not pieces of paper or keystrokes. Real resources. To compound your bewilderment, would it stretch your credulity too much to say that the birth of a dollar...

Abby Martin on the Jimmy Dore Show Talks about US Crimes of Empire: Part 2

This is the second part of my article on the interview with Abby Martin on the Jimmy Dore Show. Martin is the presenter of the Empire Files on TeleSur English, and a former presenter at RT. She is impassioned, incisive and tells the story of the victims of American and western imperialism both abroad in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the mass of severely normal Americans at home burdened with the tax bill and the sheer rapacious greed of the neoliberal, corporate elite.

She states that Boeing and the other big corporations fund the adverts in the media simply to show the journos, who’s paying their wages, and so keep in line. The media is now all about advertising, not news.

They then talk about the rampant Russia-phobia, which Martin says is causing her to lose her mind. At first she just thought it was the product of Trump and his brown shirts. Dore rips this to shreds by pointing out that it’s not Russia that preventing Americans from getting what they want on a range of issues. 90 per cent of Americans want some form of gun control. But they ain’t getting, and it’s not because of Russia. 80 per cent of the US wanted a public option for Obamacare. Didn’t get it. Not because of Russia either. Americans also want Medicare For All and free college education. Denied that too – but not by the Russians. And everybody in America wants the wars to end. And it ain’t the Russians that are preventing that from happening. The people really screwing America is Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, big pharma, and the fossil fuel industry.

Back to Boeing and its adverts, the company’s funding Meet the Press to shut the press up. Half of America doesn’t believe in climate change, because it’s just presented by the media as just another point of view. And this is because the networks are funded by the fossil fuel industry. And the networks bring on general after endless general to talk about how the US should go to war with North Korea. All they talk about is how the war should be fought, but they are never challenged on the reason why. They never bring on Medea Benjamin, the head of the anti-war opposition group, Code Pink, except to mock her. Similarly, you never see union leaders on TV, nor are there any anti-war voices. As for Brian Williams, who was sacked for telling porkies about how he took fire, his real crime was that he didn’t tell his audience that the ‘objective’ news he was broadcasting was paid for by the generals who appeared on his show.

They then talk about the revolving door between the generals and the defence contractors. After the generals retire, they go to work for some company like General Electric. Martin talks about the $500 million in one bill sponsored by John McCain, to train the Ukrainians against Russian aggression. She caustically and accurately remarks that ‘we’re now funding neo-Nazis’, after setting up the coup that overthrew their last president. America is also giving $750 million to Israel for defence.

The Russia scare was hatched by Ralph Mook and John Podesta in the Democrat party, and it’s grown into a huge conspiracy. Martin describes how she saw it all developing three years ago when she was working for RT. They first attacked Al-Jazeera, demonising it as the propaganda wing of Saddam Hussein. Then they turned against RT as a network and her personally. She states that the report on which the accusations are based is rubbish. It looks like it was half written by some unpaid intern. There’s that contempt for any truth or real fact in this document. She noticed when one of RT’s presenters publicly resigned over Putin’s annexation of the Crimea. That was a psy-ops operation launched by William Kristol, one of the founders of the Neocons and the head of the Project for the New American Century. There was absolute no proof that Russia was meddling in American democracy. And half of the document attacked Martin personally. It was fomenting radical discontent, and the elite hated the way they covered third parties, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street. so talking about how half of America has less than $1,000 in savings is now Russian propaganda. It’s at this point that Martin states she never said anything in praise in Putin. She states that there are plenty of leftists and socialists working at the network, not because they like Putin, but because there is nowhere else to go.

They then talk about how the Democrat party is full of people, who voted for Bush twice. And particularly the way Keith Olberman, whom Martin had previously admired, came out and publicly apologised to George Dubya. She states that Bush is a war criminal. He set up a gulag (Guantanamo) killed and tortured people wholesale, but when he appeared on Oprah she held his hand as if he was Buddha! Martin said she realised Obama was a fake when he refused to prosecute the war criminals. So now they have Trump, who’s hated because he’s a narcissist, but knows he will have people applauding every time he bombs people. They ask rhetorically whether the media will apologise to Nixon if Trump wins a second term.

They then go on to discuss how Trump is actually less dangerous, and more of a threat to the establishment, then Mike Pence, the Vice-President. Martin describes Pence, with good reason, as a ‘Christian ISIS who wants to kill gays’. He’s psychotic, but you wouldn’t have the cult of personality you have with Trump. She states that the Christian Evangelicals love him, as without him they wouldn’t have got in. And so Pence and DeVos are quite happy to use him as the fall guy, taking the rap for the policies they’re pushing through Congress. Trump represents the worst elements in society – the cult of celebrity, of reality TV shows, the adulation given to millionaires. She states that Joyce Behar, another personality, was paradoxically the voice of reason when she said on one interview that things wouldn’t be better if they only got rid of Trump. No, not if that meant Mike Pence becoming president. They talk about how, when Bush was in power, everyone talked about Bush Derangement Disorder. Then it was Obama Derangement Disorder, and now its Trump Derangement Disorder. But Dore also points out that progressives dodged a bullet with Trump. Voting for the lesser of two evils meant that they got Trump, who is too incompetent to get his policies through.

To be continued in Part 3.

Paul Krugman: Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 18/11/2017 - 4:56am in

"The only significant winners would be those making more than $1 million a year.":

Everybody Hates the Trump Tax Plan, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: Looking at the reactions to Republican tax plans, I found myself remembering what people used to say about former Senator Phil Gramm...: “Even his friends don’t like him.”...

The general public strongly disapproves — by a 2-1 majority, according to Quinnipiac, although the majority would be even bigger if people really understood what’s going on. But surely at least C.E.O.s like the plan, right?

Actually, not so much. A few days ago Gary Cohn, Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser, met with a group of top executives. They were asked to raise their hands if lower taxes would lead them to raise capital expenditures; only a handful did. “Why aren’t the other hands up?” asked Cohn, plaintively.

The answer is that C.E.O.s ... know that tax rates aren’t that important a factor in investment decisions. ...Most serious economic analyses agree..: Corporate tax cuts wouldn’t actually do much to raise investment. They would, however, explode the budget deficit.

So in an attempt to limit that deficit blowout, Senate Republicans are proposing significant tax increases on working families..., taxes would rise on average for every group with incomes under $75,000 a year... The only significant winners would be those making more than $1 million a year. Populism!

Oh, and this doesn’t even take account of the health care sabotage... By repealing the mandate ... the plan would ... cause 13 million to lose coverage; that loss of coverage, and the associated government subsidies, is why mandate repeal saves money that can be given to corporations. But the move would also drive up premiums... So that’s an additional, hidden indirect tax on the middle class.

Nor does it take account of what would inevitably come next: tax-cut-induced deficits would, by law, trigger cuts in Medicare, and this would just be the start of a G.O.P. assault on programs like disability insurance...

All of which raises the question, why are Republicans even trying to do this? It’s bad policy and bad politics, and the politics will get worse as voters learn more about the facts. Well, last week one G.O.P. congressman, Chris Collins of New York, gave the game away: “My donors are basically saying get it done or don’t ever call me again.”

So we’re talking about government of the people, not by the people, but by wealthy donors, for wealthy donors. Everyone else hates this plan — and they should.

California working

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 17/11/2017 - 12:08pm in

A video from the Labor Center at UC-Berkeley reports on the employment and growth results of progressive state policies in California:

Source: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/california-is-working/

Paul Krugman: Republican Class Warfare: The Next Generation

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 16/11/2017 - 5:22am in

"This isn’t just ordinary class warfare; it’s class warfare aimed at perpetuating inequality into the next generation.":

Republican Class Warfare: The Next Generation, by Paul Krugman: The other day, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, admitted to The New York Times that he “misspoke” when he declared that his party’s tax plan wouldn’t raise taxes on any middle-class families. But he misspoke when he said “misspoke”: The proper term is “lied.” ...

We’re still waiting for detailed analysis of the Senate bill, but the House bill doesn’t just raise taxes on many middle-class families: It selectively raises taxes on families with children. In fact, half — half! — of families with children will see a tax hike once the bill is fully phased in.

Suppose that a child from a working-class family decides ... to attend college, probably taking out a loan to help pay tuition. Well, guess what: Under the House bill, that interest would no longer be deductible, substantially raising the cost of college.

What if you’re working your way through school and your employer contributes toward your education expenses? The House bill would make that contribution taxable income.

What if your parent is a university employee, and you get reduced tuition as a result? That tuition break becomes taxable income. So would tuition breaks for graduate students who work as teaching or research assistants.

So what we’re looking at here are a variety of measures that will close off opportunities for children who weren’t clever enough to choose wealthy parents.

Meanwhile, funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers more than eight million children, expired a month and a half ago — and so far, Republicans have made no serious effort to restore it. This is surely the shape of things to come: If tax cuts pass, and the deficit explodes, the G.O.P. will suddenly decide that deficits matter again and will demand cuts in social programs, many of which benefit lower-income children.

So this isn’t just ordinary class warfare; it’s class warfare aimed at perpetuating inequality into the next generation. Taken together, the elements of both the House and the Senate bills amount to a more or less systematic attempt to lavish benefits on the children of the ultra-wealthy while making it harder for less fortunate young people to achieve upward social mobility.

Or to put it differently, the tax legislation Republicans are trying to ram through Congress with indecent haste, without hearings or time for any kind of serious study, looks an awful lot like an attempt not simply to reinforce plutocracy, but to entrench a hereditary plutocracy.

Experts Explain How Wall Street Loots The Economy

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 13/11/2017 - 4:01am in

Tags 

Taxes, Wall Street

If you feel lost in the cacophony of contrasting claims that Wall Street was adequately reformed under the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010 or that it remains an insidious wealth transfer system for the 1 percent, then you need to invest one-hour of your time to listen carefully to some of the smartest experts in America address the topic. A free one-hour video is now available (see above) which should settle the debate once and for all that the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010 has failed to deliver the needed reforms to Wall Street’s corrupt culture and fraudulent business models and that nothing short of restoring the Glass-Steagall Act is going to make the U.S. financial system safe again. Don’t let the grainy quality of the video turn you off (it was made from a live webinar): the integrity of the voices will quickly reassure you that you are watching something powerful and critical to the future of the U.S. The background of the participants is as follows: Dr. Marcus Stanley is the Policy Director of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of more than 250 national, state, and local groups who have come together to advocate for reform of the financial sector. Stanley has a Ph.D. in public policy from Harvard University and previously worked as a Senior Economist at the U.S. Joint Economic Committee. Nomi Prins is a renowned author whose last book, All the Presidents’ Bankers, is a seminal work on the problematic relationships of Wall Street bankers and U.S. presidents over the past century. Prins is also a respected former veteran of Wall Street investment banks where she reached a top rung as Managing Director of Goldman Sachs. Bartlett (Bart) Naylor is the Financial Policy Advocate for the nonprofit, Public Citizen, which since its founding in 1971 has served as the voice of the American people in Washington D.C. Naylor is an expert on corporate governance, financial markets and shareholder rights and previously served as Chief of Investigations for the U.S Senate Banking Committee. Heather Slavkin Corzo is the director of the AFL-CIO Office of Investment and served as the chair of the Americans for Financial Reform task force on derivatives regulation from 2010 through 2013. Corzo holds a law degree from Boston University School of Law. Also appearing in the video is Mayo Makinde, representing Our Revolution in NW Ohio. The grassroots organization, an outgrowth of Senator Bernie Sanders campaign for President in 2016, has been an active supporter of the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act. In the video presentation, Prins addresses the new market bubbles that are occurring today and which pose a serious risk to U.S. financial stability. One dangerous area says Prins is that the Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that played a major role in blowing up Wall Street in 2007-2008 are still being created but are now called BTOs (Bespoke Tranche Opportunity.) On August 23 of this year, the Financial Times wrote about the BTOs, noting the following: “Bespoke tranches are created by allowing investors to pick a bundle of about 100 different ‘single-name’ credit defaults swaps — derivatives that reflect market perceptions of the named company’s creditworthiness. The bundle is then sliced into ‘tranches,’ offering different levels of risk and return…Citigroup is the largest bank counterparty for such trades, according to investors and traders, with JPMorgan Chase and BNP Paribas also active. The resurgence of interest has pushed other banks, such as Goldman Sachs, to begin looking at expanding trading in the product as well.” Wall Street On Parade has previously highlighted how Citigroup, the bank at the center of the crisis in 2007 and 2008 and the recipient of the largest taxpayer bailout of a bank in U.S. history, has continued to pile into some of the riskiest areas of the market. (See Bailed Out Citigroup Is Going Full Throttle into Derivatives That Blew Up AIG.) Stanley explains how the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act led directly to the financial crisis on Wall Street and the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Stanley says that when “you repealed Glass-Steagall you took down those firewalls between the different parts of the financial system and you allowed these mega banks to grow; that combined the support for the commercial bank (the government-guarantee to your insured deposits) and the capital markets activity of the big investment banks. And all of those giant mega banks were simultaneously involved in the same fraudulent business models.” One fraudulent business model cited by Stanley was the CDO market – a $640 billion market which Stanley says lost 65 percent of its value after being sold as AAA-rated securities, “the Gold Standard,” says Stanley. He compares this to going to a grocery store you trust and bringing home your food to find out that two-thirds of it is toxic. The speakers urge American citizens to become engaged in the battle to restore the Glass-Steagall Act by calling their members of Congress and demanding that they add their sponsorship to the bills that have been introduced in both the House and Senate to bring back the complete separation of insured depository banks from their high-risk casino cousins, the investment banks of Wall Street. The phone number to reach either your Senator or Congress Member is 202 224 3121.

Paul Krugman: Trump and Ryan Versus the Little People

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 11/11/2017 - 4:11am in

"The end result of this tax bill would be to leave most working Americans, even those who wouldn’t face direct tax increases, worse off, all for the benefit of a tiny minority":

Trump and Ryan Versus the Little People, by Paul Krugman, NY Times: According to news reports, Donald Trump wanted the House Republican tax “reform” bill to be called the Cut Cut Cut Act. Alas, he didn’t get his wish, and it was instead given a boring name nobody can remember. But there’s still time to change it! So let me propose, as one reader suggested, that it be renamed the Leona Helmsley Act, after the New York hotelier convicted of tax evasion, who famously declared that “only the little people pay taxes.”

That, after all, is the main thrust of the bill. It hugely favors the wealthy over the middle class, which is pretty much always true of Republican proposals. But it’s not just about favoring high incomes: It also systematically favors people who live off their assets, especially inherited wealth, over the little people — that is, poor shlubs who actually have to work for a living. ...

So when Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser, says that the bill’s goal is “to deliver middle-class tax cuts to the hard-working families in this country,” he’s claiming that up is down and black is white. This bill does little or nothing for the middle class, and even among the affluent it’s biased against those who work hard in favor of the idle rich.

Also let’s not forget that tax increases on working Americans are only part of the story. This bill would also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, add $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. You know what that means: If this bill or anything like it passes, Republicans will immediately revert to their previous pretense of being deficit hawks and start demanding spending cuts.

And since federal spending is dominated by programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — that benefit the middle and working classes, the end result of this tax bill would be to leave most working Americans, even those who wouldn’t face direct tax increases, worse off, all for the benefit of a tiny minority, especially those who haven’t even worked for their wealth.

You might wonder how Republicans imagine that they can get away with this. But anyone who has paid attention to U.S. politics knows the answer. First, they will lie, unashamedly, about what their bill actually does. Second, they will try to distract working-class voters by stoking racial animosity. That didn’t work too well in Tuesday’s elections, but they’ll keep on trying.

Pages