ataxingmatter

Intangible assets hard to tax--France has an idea...

One of the ways that technology-based businesses like Big Pharma and Big IT companies dealing primarily with intangible assets (patents, copyrights, licenses, information databases) escape paying much in taxes anywhere is their ability to move those assets around almost costlessly and to claim whatever site seems most convenient as their home jurisdiction.  Not having any "real" property within a jurisdiction can seem to render them invisible to taxing systems.

One example in this country is the way that online sales networks have tried to avoid state taxes by having no physical assets in the state and claiming not to 'do business' in the state.  Recently, states have been wising up, in part due to an intensive lobbying effort aimed at pointing out the inherent unfairness in taxing only local businesses with physical stores while their main competitors rake in the tax-free dough.

Another example is the way that multinational enterprises (MNEs) with mostly intangible valuables claim to "sell" their essential intangible patents to offshore affiliates in low-tax jurisdictions, thus claiming to move valuable income-producing assets offshore.  Since they would in fact never actually sell such essential property to a competitor, the "transfer pricing" mechanisms that the US uses to police such deals by attempting to require a "market price" are  inadequate, resulting in offshoring of profits.  Offshore captive insurance companies operate similarly, with premiums paid to offshore affiliates permitting an undeserved decrease in domestic taxable income.

"Google generates more than $30 billion a year in advertising revenue, including an estimated €1.5 billion, or $2 billion, in France. Yet, like other American Internet companies, it pays almost no taxes in France."   Eric Pfanner, France Proposes an Internet Tax, Jan. 20, 2013.  France, frustrated with its current inability to tax such MNE IT giants like Google, Facebook and Microsoft, is considering new ways to attack the problem.   A report commissioned by President Hollande suggests a tax on internet data collection.  See id.  Data collected by these companies, the report says, is the "raw material" of the digital economy and is insufficiently captured by current economic analysis. 

(ASIDE:  Of course, almost nothing is sufficiently captured by current economic analysis, since economists mostly still operate with the wacky theoretical models that assume everything is at equilibrium (which it never genuninely is), and that every actor is rationally maximizes his own greedy objectives (which is never true either).  There are various other problems with the current popular "free market" economic theories, but those suffice to suggest that most politicians are being rather silly when they go to most economists for advice on how to structure their tax systems or how to make their economies work better--particularly if those economists ascribe to the Friedman school's notions of "free market" dogma.)

Like the financial transaction tax, which would help to stem rampant speculation by the big banks that puts world economies at risk, a  data collection tax on the big data companies would offer some help in stemming the rampant speculation by those companies in personal data.  Such data collection may well also prove to put economies--and individuals--at considerable risk, as genetic information, interconnected banking and investment strategies and other data is reached, stored and used. 

And like the financial transaction tax, a data collection tax is not likely to work very well without OECD cooperation among advanced countries.

These are the kinds of issues that Congress should be discussing when they talk about "tax reform"--NOT how to lower the corporate tax rate in the US, which is fine where it is; NOT about how to provide more tax expenditure subsidies to corporations that are already making huge profits (like Oil, Insurance, etc.) but rather about how to ensure that the externalities like pollution, catastrophic risk, and other ills that Big Business has been so good at shoving off on the rest of us get paid for out of business income and how to use the tax system more effectively to cause the economy to work for ordinary folk rather than to cater to the wealth accumulation of the very small percentage at the very very top.

If we want an economy that works well, we should stop the current s0-called "tax reform" train that is being run by lobbyists for Big Business and doesn't even begin to consider the appropriate paramenters.  Instead, Congress should make a priority the consideration of real reform ideas like the following:

1.  eliminate the capital gain preference and increase the estate tax:  the combination of preferences for capital income and capital wealth unfairly allows the wealthy to accrue income at very low rates with assets that also permit them to monetize their assets while retaining them to pass along to their heirs at very low rates of taxation.
2. use the tax code to discourage conglomerate formation and pseudo monopoly formation (limit rather than extend tax-free reorganizations);
3. discourage  tax-subsidized speculation in real estate by eliminating section 1031 nonrecognition "like-kind exchanges";
4. push for more prudent banking and financial systems (enact a financial transactions tax; treat most derivatives as bets rather than financial transactions);
5. require more responsible citizenship from big MNEs (treat any offshoring of business assets as a fully taxable event; disallow offshoring of key patents and other intangibles to affiliates by treating such transactions as disregarded for federal income tax purposes)
6. protect personal privacy while also ensuring that IT companies pay a reasonable amount of tax on their profits (tax collection of personal data)
7. end tax expenditure subsidies for hugely profitable enterprises that are also highly culpable of offloading pollution impacts (and climate change impacts) onto the general public, like Big Oil and Big Gas
8. protect workers by reforming the labor laws to ensure that no state can deprive public workers of their rights to bargain collectively and  at the same time reform the tax laws to limit deductibility of pay for top administrators by tying the limit on deductible pay to the average pay of the company's non-administrative workers (nothing deductible in excess of 10 times the average pay for non-administrators, for example);

 

Related articles

Social Security/Medicare vs Corporate Welfare

France Proposes a Tax On Personal Information Collection

Tax man trying to figure out a way to outsmart Google

Welfare Spending: Medicare vs Corporate/Business Subsidies (or does the GOP really support WalMart's behavior in Bangladesh?)

As most readers know, the federal government is currently in what passes for negotiations between the President's Democratic Party Senate and House members and the GOP members that control the House. 

The Tea Party and its right-wing rhetoric has of course had a radicalizing impact on the GOP positions, with members not only beholden to Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge (all strongly supported by various right-wing propaganda tanks like the Tax Foundation, Heritage, American Enterprise, and other organizations) but also to the anti-social welfare corporatists like David and Charles Koch, the Wal-Mart heirs, and other oligarchic families that constitute the top 1% of US income and wealth.  As a result of these two strong influences, the GOP now stands for

• tax-cuts-no-matter-what (and for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy most of all, as reflected in the rigid position in favor of the "carried interest" scam used by private equity profits partners and the extraordinarily preferential rate for capital gains and dividends included in the "net capital gain" definition under section 1(h)(11)); and
• so-called "entitlement reforms", by which GOPers generally mean reduction in benefits and/or privatization of social welfare programs including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  (All of this is argued in terms of caring about "saving" the programs for the future, but the truth lies in the ways that the right proposes changes to the programs--not changes in costs related to profits taken out by Big Pharma and similar interests, but changes in benefits to ordinary Americans (such as raising the working age for eligibility even though those who work at the hardest labor need benefits earlier, not later, or lowering the cost-of-living-allowance adjustment to benefits for Medicare, even though seniors generally have a HIGHER cost of living because of their increased medical needs, including prescription drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, and similar diseases particularly prevalent in the elderly population.)

The sum of those positions stands for a corporatist philosophy of benefitting the oligarchy and their business enterprises at the expense of everyday Americans who work for a living.

This is even more obvious when one looks at the same groups' position on government subsidies for business.  The New York Times recently ran an article on this issue, noting that governments typically pay out a lot of money to support profits of companies and receive very little benefit in terms of tax revenues received and jobs created!  Louise Story, As companies seek tax deals, governments pay high price, New York Times (Dec. 1, 2012).

Over at MauledAgain, one of my fellow tax professors Jim Maule has, like me, long criticized the hypocrisy of supporting tax breaks for private enterprise and opposing earned benefits programs for ordinary citizens and has repeatedly pointed out that the economics of the tax breaks for business don't work out for anybody but the owners and managers of the businesses.  They certainly don't work for taxpayers of the jurisdiction providing them.  As Jim notes:

 These tax breaks are nothing more than welfare payments to private enterprise. Opponents of social welfare spending defend these outlays with as much passion as they bring to their attempts to end government assistance for individuals in need of help.James Maule, The Hidden Government Spending Game, MauledAgain (Dec. 5, 2012).

Jim rebuts one of the sham arguments for corporate subsidies--that they are just "keeping what belongs to them."  Those special subsidies to one private enterprise sector cause ripple effects throughout the economy--higher taxes to the other taxpayers to make up for the lost revenues, or cuts in important programs that can no longer be sustained without the revenues.  Prices and wages may change as well.  Id.

What I want to focus on is the hypocrisy of claiming an interest in ending "entitlements" but applying that philosophy only to programs that are intended to help ordinary citizens and not to those intended to beef up the profits of corporations or their managers and owners.  This is especially hypocritical for today's right-wing, since they almost universally claim to ascribe to the view that competition is good and that businesses should fail when they cannot successfully compete. 

Look at two cases involving WalMart, a multinational enterprise that fights unionization of its employees (and supports right-to-work laws that weaken worker rights) in every way imaginable.

1) In Champlain Illinois (personal experience), WalMart had a huge spralling complex on one side of the road.  It had gotten various tax support for the complex.  It decided to move across the road and down the block into another jurisdiction.  It got new tax subsidies there.  It abandonned the old building and left whatever environmental pollution there.  Who gained?  Mostly WalMart managers and owners.  Not the town and counties.  Not the employees.  Not even the consumers who shopped there, who had to deal with the blight of the abandonned building and the multiplication of vast expanses of ugly parking lots.

2) WalMart in Bangladesh.   WalMart delivers cheap goods because it outsources its clothing and other manufacturing needs to impoverished countries where workers can be paid almost nothing and get almost no protections.  In Bangladesh last month, a clothing factory burned, killing hundreds of workers.  It was a WalMart supplier. See  Natasha Leonard, WalMart's Connection to Bangladesh Clothing Factory, Salon.com (Nov. 26, 2012), where a critic noted that:

"Wal-Mart is supporting, is incentivizing, an industry strategy in Bangladesh: extreme low wages, non-existent regulation, brutal suppression of any attempt by workers to act collectively to improve wages and conditions." Id.

This was a modern-day repeat of the Triangle Shirt Factory incident in the early nineteenhundreds in New York City:  workers unable to escape burned to death in factory rooms without fire exits and yet dangerously littered with lint and other debris that made their workplace a fire hazard. 

WalMart, in fact, has led the fight against workers' rights and spending on safety at that factory and others.  See Natasha Leonard,  WalMart wouldn't pay for Bangladeshi factory safety improvements, Salon.com (Dec. 6, 2012). 

These things are all tied together: hostility to workers rights to bargain collectively for some fair share of the productivity gains that their labor brings about, hostility to workers rights to a safe working place; hostitlity to workers rights to decent health care; hostility to ordinary people's rights to a sustainable lifestyle; and hostility to any effort to make the oligarchic uber-rich pay a fair share of the costs of the infrastructure to sustain an economy and a people.

Tax policy, spending policy, policy towards workers, policy towards the wealthy uber-rich--these are all closely intertwined and must be considered of a piece.  Tax policy needs to establish reasonable levels of contributions based on a progressive income tax that takes into account the marginal utility of the dollar.  Spending policy needs to set priorities based on something other than the lobbying by special corporate and oligarch interests for tax-and-spending provisions that privilege themselves.    Policy towards labor rights and workplace safety need to recognize that the worker is disemplowered within the workplace and needs some legal support to provide a reasonable share of productivity gains--minimum wage laws, unionization laws, workers safety laws need to protect workers rights against the all-powerful employer.

If the right succeeds in continuing to pass right-to-work laws (Michigan's lame duck GOP is trying to do that right now), if the oligarchs succeed in capturing all the profits from workers' labor--there will be social unrest on the scale of the Great Depression.  Everybody will suffer from that kind of austerity and class warfare policy.  Broad based economic growth that comes from workers sharing in the profits of their industry and those at the top not getting an unreasonable share of the productivity gains is better for all. 

Related articles

Wal-Mart, Sears Must Put Out Fires in Bangladesh Factories: View - Bloomberg

Walmart rejected safety upgrades at Asia factory where 100 die in fire

Five Wal-Mart Vendors Made Clothes at Burned Bangladesh Factory

Bangladesh factory owner: I didn't know fire exits were needed

The Poverty of Nations: Wal-Mart Efficiency and The Destitution of America

Jon Takes On Wal-Mart, Hostess

Wal-Mart Said 'No' to Paying for Fire Safety in Bangladesh

Growing inequality calls for both "predistribution" and (rightly directed) redistribution

In putting forward my theme of democratic egalitarianism, I have often noted that there is no such thing as an economically egalitarian society--there will always be differentials among people, those differences often relate to social class and the education, privileged upbringing, and networking connections that ensure success for some and deny success to others as well as to innate abilities, so that those differences inevitably translate into some being better off economically than others.   

Because of those differences, the "powers that be"--i.e., existing concentrations of financial assets, prestige and associated political power among the privileged class at the very top of the income and wealth distribution-- result in redistribution upwards from poor and middle class to the upper crust.  And most in that privileged upper-crust think they've acquired it all on the basis of their own merit and that the reason others don't have it is because they are irresponsible, don't work hard enough, don't have a good business sense or are just incompetent. 

(That is of course the tale told by the like of Mitt Romney at his private fundraiser in Flordia, where he revealed his utter disdain for half of the US population and his self-indulging belief that he got where he is entirely on his own merit .  He can't even see, much less acknowledge, either his silver-spoon upbringing of class, wealth and connections or the various government-subsidized upwards redistribution from which he has benefited through capital gains preferences, carried interest treatment, disregard of the harm caused by his leveraged-buyout business model, and government subsidies through high-value government contracts and low-cost government loans.) 

Therefore, I have argued,  democratic institutions (government, programs, policies) must target achieving a sustainable economy that provides a decent livelihood for all.  They must also prevent inordinate inequality, because huge inequality among the citizenry foils all attempts to achieve either a sustainable economy or sustainable democratic institutions. 

That means that government policies must focus on creating paths for redistribution downwards from the upper crust to the middle and lower classes, undoing the corporatist top-down approach that has supported class warfare and allowed the wealthy to capture most of the productivity gains since Reagan's presidency.  Two government systems can work, on the margins, to achieve some level of downwards redistribution--benefits and taxes.  Benefits do so by providing a safety net under those most vulnerable who have never achieved a sustainable economic livelihood--the unemployed and unemployable, the sick, the elderly, the children who have poor schools, poor families, and inadequate shelter, nutrition and opportunity.  Taxes do so by taking more from those who have grabbed an inordinate portion of the resource pie and using those revenues to fund benefits as well as infrastructure (human and physical) that supports the efforts by ordinary Americans to achieve sustainable livelihoods.

We have been moving backwards on both of these systems.  The radical right has spent the last 30-40 years pushing an agenda that ultimately wants to (i) dismantle or radically reduce benefits programs (voucherizing medicare, privatizing social security, cutting back on unemployment, allowing states to reduce medicaid and children's health coverage, etc.) and (ii) eliminate taxes on corporations and the primary source of income of high-wealth individuals through a gradual reduction in progressive rate structure, elimination of the estate tax, elimination of capital gains taxes (and treatment of wealthy people's wages as though they were capital gains, through provisions like stock options and carried interest).  Paul Ryan's positions on Medicare and Social Security should be a clarion-call to get out the vote--against the Romney-Ryan ticket-- of every person who does not earn more than $300,000 a year.   The Norquist-Koch Brothers-Karl Rove-Ryan-Romney agenda on taxes should similarly cause ordinary Americans who earn less than $300,000 a year to take to the streets and to refuse to vote for any member of the GOP.  Recall that the beginning of the current trend towards too little tax revenues and especially too little taxation of the ultra rich was radical reduction of rates with purported base-broadening (such as elimination of the capital gains preference, creation and then ramping up of the alternative minimum tax).  As could be expected, lower rates lived on (and were lowered even more by Bush) but much of the base broadening was short-lived:  lobbying by the privileged at the top led to a quick return to a capital gains preference and the undoing of the AMT as an inequality leveler.  The Bush tax cuts rewarded corporate owners and managers and the wealthy class with extraordinary tax relief, while imposing long-term deficits on the country, behind a cheerful facade of "tax simplification" that was irrelevant for the 70% of the population that uses the standard deduction.

There is a third leg to the reduction-of-inequality stool.  Tax reform that restores a truly progressive income tax is one leg.  Benefit reform that builds on the achievements of the New Deal rather than destroying them is another.  The third leg is what some call "predistribution"--paying attention to the means by which the uppercrust has seized all of the productivity gains and reduced the ability of everyone else to have a decent, sustainable livelihood. 

British Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for predistribution as a new agenda in Britain.  See Predistribution: A Big New Idea, Noted, The Nation (Oct. 8, 2012), at 5. 

The term [predistribution] was coined by US political scientist Jacob Hacker, who in 2011 noted that discussions of government responses to inequality often begin and end with redistribution [downwards]--taxing the rich to provide benefits for the rest.  But that's only half the equation, Hacker said, uring progressives to pay more attention to 'the way in which the market distributes its rewards in the first place.' That includes regulations that protect consumers and empower workers: 'The regulation of markets to limit extremes and give the middle class more voice is hardly easy. ... But it is both more popular and more effective than after-the-fact mopping up.'

Milibrand agrees.  Noting the high human cost of austerity, he said, 'We need to care about predistribution as well as redistribution.' After trying 'to make work pay better by spending more on trasfer payments,' he argued, government must 'also make work pay better by making work itself pay.'

These concepts--predistribution (making up for malfunctioning markets to make work itself pay) and redistribution downwards (actual reallocation from market results through taxation and benefit policies)--are closely interrelated.  Successful redistribution downwards augments the ability of workers to afford necessities and small luxuries, and that economic activity empowers workers in the markets and gives workers an opportunity for a voice in the markets and workplaces compared to a position where employers and owners have almost dictatorial control and can garner all the workers' productivity gains for themselves.  Focus on predistribution, however, reminds us that worker rights are essential to a sustainable, broad-based economy

What kinds of rights are we talking about?  Surely a critical right is the workers' right to collective bargaining (supported by a "yes" vote on Proposal 2 in Michigan that would put that right in the state constitution where it could not be removed by the radical right legislative block).  Surely the right of the state to build infrastructure (that will create worker jobs) rather than allowing a wealthy tycoon to corner the market on international bridge crossings in Detroit and hog the revenues for himself rather than allow them to be earned by the people (Proposal 6, vote "no" so that Matty doesn't have veto power allowing him to co-opt public infrastructure for his private profits).

Predistribution pays attention to how much ordinary workers are paid compared to how much the managers at the top get out of a company.  We should be "pushing local employers to narrow the pay ratio between the top and the bottom ranks of their workforce."  Id.  For too long, we have acted like it is just fine for the "market" to demand that the wealthy be allowed to exploit communities and workers for their own benefit.  We need to say no.

Predistribution pays attention to regulations that protect workers--from worker safety to time off to family leave. It disregards the multinational corporations' pleas for laws to suit them and instead asks why we should be subsidizing their ability to move active business assets to foreign countries and leave US workers unemployed.  It acnkowledges that we have for too long allowed corporate owners and managers to snow us with their claims that "globalization" and "free trade" worked for our benefit, when in fact these are excuses for offshoring jobs so that the owners and managers can enjoy even higher "rent" profits.  As Milbrand says, "It's just not true that all the top CEOs will leave the country unless we pay them whatever they demand."  Id. 

Base Broadening as a means of tax reform

The Congressional Research Service recently released a report by Jane Gravelle and Tom Hungerford on The Challenge of Individual Income Tax Reform: An Economic Analysis of Tax Base Broadening (Mar. 12, 2012).  Tax Base Broadening is the proposal often put forward by those who say we can and should lower rates across the board (also reducing progressivity by limiting the number of rate brackets to two or three) and pay for it by removing some of the tax expenditures and subsidies in the tax system, such as the home mortgage loan interest deduction or certain health benefit provisions.

IHere's an excerpt from the summary of the report.

Congressional interest in a major reform of the individual income tax that would broaden the base and use the additional tax revenues to lower rates and/or reduce the deficit has increased. ...  One way to broaden the tax base is to eliminate or reduce tax expenditures, which have been in the tax code since the passage of the progressive income tax in 1913. An understanding of four complex issues surrounding tax expenditures is necessary for an informed debate over broadening the tax base. First, tax expenditures affect the economic behavior of taxpayers (efficiency effects). Second, changing tax expenditures will change the distribution of tax benefits, and the distribution of after-tax income (equity effects). Third, changes to tax expenditures could change
the administrative burdens on taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Lastly, many tax expenditures are popular among taxpayers and voters. Each one of these issues presents challenges to broadening the tax base, which could be difficult to overcome.

There are over 200 separate tax expenditures, which are projected to total over $1.1 trillion in FY2014. The revenue loss of all tax expenditures, however, is highly concentrated in a relatively small number—the largest 20 tax expenditures account for 90% of the total revenue loss of all tax expenditures. This amount is equivalent to 74% of the total FY2014 revenue from individual income taxes....

[T]ax expenditures are divided into seven major categories: saving, business investment, consumption, owner-occupied housing (which is a combination of an investment choice and a consumption choice), labor supply, government programs (which in many cases would have no behavioral effects but are simply income transfers), and a category termed structural (which provides benefits based on family circumstances rather than affecting behavior). 

The analysis in this report suggests there are impediments to base broadening by eliminating or reducing tax expenditures, because they are viewed as serving an important purpose, are important for distributional reasons, are technically difficult to change, or are broadly used by the public and quite popular. Given the barriers to eliminating or reducing most tax expenditures, it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion in additional tax revenues through base broadening. This amount could have a significant effect on reducing the FY2014 budget deficit—reducing the projected $345 billion deficit by 30% to 43%. This additional tax revenue, however, is equivalent to about 6% to 9% of projected FY2014 individual income tax revenue, and, consequently, would not allow for significant reductions in tax rates (about a one or
two percentage point reduction for each bracket).

The conclusion of the report seems realistic given the current dysfunctionality of Congress--it would be highly unlikely that core reforms could be made to raise sufficient revenues to support a large rate reduction, though some elimination of problematic tax expenditures would be a good move towards reducing our structural budget deficits.  Let's eliminate the long-term subsidies for the extractive industries that have given subsidized profits for oil and gas barons and get rid of other provisions that haven't served the purpose claimed for them, like the research & experimentation credit (any business can deduct real research expenses; the credit is just a way to cut corporate taxes for heavily lobbying industries like Big Pharma, IT and others).  But let's acknowledge that the current  right-wing fad idea to reduce tax rates even more and pretend to pay for it with uny base broadening isn't going to work.

I find base broadening proposals for tax policy reform amiss for three other important reasons. 

• First, we already collect less tax as a percent of GDP than historically; thus,we need to raise more tax revenue rather than maintain revenue neutrality with the current too-low tax system, especially by increasing the take from corporate taxes (the 'tax shelter problem') and by reducing the ability of service partners to game the system (the 'carried interest' problem). 
• Second, most ideas for base broadening and rate lowering end up resulting in more rate lowering than base broadening, because the lobbyists get to work immediately on reinstating the provisions that have been eliminated to broaden the base while simultaneously arguing that letting the rates go back up would be a growth-killing tax increase.  Accordingly, base broadening won't work unless there is a firm will to maintain a broader base and take the political flack that the lobbyists will release.  This Congress isn't anywhere near having that kind of will, and if it does, it is more likely to reduce important social programs (Medicare, health care, education, etc.) and leave the notoriously inefficient subsidies for oil and gas, Big Pharma and other lobby-hard favorites in place.
• Third, much of the assumptions about tax efficiency are questionable--we actually understand the interactive effects of the tax system very poorly, and don't know when a tax change will affect a person's decisions to work, not work, spend, not spend, or otherwise respond to the tax change.  So it is more likely that ideology will drive the decisions, rather than an unbiased approach founded on reasonable research to determine which provisions really work to do what they were claimed to be enacted to accomplish.  And given the current lopsided representation of right-wingers in Congress (compared to the population at large), that means that right-wing rhetoric rather than considered policy determinations will likely drive any "base broadening" tax reform that does take place.
• Fourth, many of those who argue for base broadening may be planning to use this as one more way to reduce or eliminate spending on important safety net provisions like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment compensation and others.

 So my preferred reform involves a few simple ideas:  1) let the Bush tax cuts expire as they are slated to do; 2) reinstate the estate tax at the 2001 rates, except with a $2 million exemption that is indexed to inflation; and 3) eliminate the preferential rate for capital gains and all of the provisions in the Code that deal with capital gains rates; and then 4) wait a while till the system is back in better balance and do tax the right way--ask what we want our government to spend money on, figure out how much money that will take to do it, and then set the tax system so that it collects the right amount of money.

Inequality, Taxes, and Corporatism viewed thru the lens of Nick Reding's "Methland"

[editorial note: back from a great break in Colorado with children and grandchildren, so postings will resume normal routine. edited in afternoon to add cite to Angry Bear post by Mike Kimel.]

The Congressional Research Service recently released a new report on U.S. income inequality.  See Hungerford, Changes in the Income Distribution Among Tax Filers 1996 to 2006: The Role of Labor Income, Capital Income, and Tax Policy, CRS (Dec. 29, 2011) (Download Hungerford. Changes in the Distribution of Income Among Tax Filers Between 1996 and 2006. Role of Labor Capital and Tax. 122911).   The CRS report is a sobering document, especially in light of the growing unrest as ordinary people realize how their opportunities are limited by the increased control of resources at the top (e.g., Occupy Wall Street, the "99% vs. 1%, etc.).   For example, see the New York Times article today on inequality and the fact that U.S. mobility trails that of Europe and Canada.  The article is based on a number of different studies such as that of Marcus Jantti and colleagues, American Exceptionalism in a New Light, and suggests that inequality has lingering impacts, especially on the poor and the ability of the poor to move out of the bottom.   See Jason DeParle, Harder for Americans to Rise from Lower Rungs, New York Times, Jan. 4, 2012 (in print edition, Jan. 5, at A1).  The article discusses the considerable evidence that there is limited access today to what we have called the "American Dream":  stickiness exists especially for the poor and the affluent, as the poor generally lack opportunities to get out, and the affluent generally have all the advantages they need to stay affluent.  See especially the graphic accompanying the article, Comparing Economic Mobility.  Id. at A12.  The causes of America's mobility problem are multiple--poverty; a thin safety net (threatened even more now by the right-wing's determined attack on earned benefits like Social Security and Medicare under cover of their purported concern about deficit reduction); the disadvantages of single motherhood; high incarceration rates, especially for black males; a long history of racial stratification that still impacts daily life; the pay tilt towards educated workers (usually made up of children of the affluent); the decline in unionization compared to other affluent countries; and the magnitude of the gap between the rich and the vast majority of Americans.  Even conservatives, who tend to think that mobility is overrated as a policy goal, may conclude that "stagnation at the bottom [is] alarming and warn[] that it will worsen."  Id. at A12 (citing conservative journalist Reihan Salam of the National Review and Daily Post).

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the right-wing in this country continues to pursue exactly those policies that have so contributed to the decline of mobility, the stagnation of incomes for the lower income population, and the loss of employee power in the workplace.  See, e.g., the plan of the Republican majority in Indiana  to enact so-called "right to work" legislation that allows non-union members to freeload off unions by getting the bargained for rights and wages without paying dues to make that bargaining possible.

What those interested in tax policy should pay especial attention to is the role of tax changes over the last 40 years in augmenting the inequality gap.  Tax is not the sole culprit, but it is a contributor and something that Congress can easily do something about, if it can summon the political will to act.  From the report summary:

Inflation-adjusted average after-tax income grew by 25% between 1996 and 2006 (the last year for which individual income tax data is publicly available). This average increase, however, obscures a great deal of variation. The poorest 20% of tax filers experienced a 6% reduction in income while the top 0.1% of tax filers saw their income almost double. Tax filers in the middle of the income distribution experienced about a 10% increase in income. Also during this period, the proportion of income from capital increased for the top 0.1% from 64% to 70%.

Income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, increased between 1996 and 2006; this is true for both before-tax and after-tax income. Before-tax income inequality increased from 0.532 to 0.582 between 1996 and 2006—a 9% increase. After-tax income inequality increased by 11% between 1996 and 2006. Total taxes (the individual income tax, the payroll tax, and the corporate income tax) reduced income inequality in both 1996 and 2006. In 1996, taxes reduced income inequality by 5%. In 2006, however, taxes reduced income inequality by less than 4%. Taxes were more progressive and had a greater equalizing effect in 1996 than in 2006.

Three potential causes of the increase in after-tax income inequality between 1996 and 2006 are changes in labor income (wages and salaries), changes in capital income (capital gains, dividends, and business income), and changes in taxes. To evaluate these potential reasons for increasing income inequality, a technique to decompose income inequality by income source is used. While earnings inequality increased between 1996 and 2006, this was not the major source of increasing income inequality over this period. Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality. Taxes were less progressive in 2006 than in 1996, and consequently, tax policy also contributed to the increase in income inequality between 1996 and 2006.

 

The members of Congress who pass such preferences (the GOP in particular, but certainly various members of the Democratic party such as Max Baucus fall into the same group) spin such preference for the rich (a group which includes most members of Congress) as supporting job creation.  Their spin suggests that anytime anyone invests in corporate stock, they are acting as entrepreneurs and increasing the possibility of jobs for the rest of us. 

The spin is mostly just that.  Most of the capital gains from sales of corporate stock have nothing to do with having invested in a company directly in ways that provide more capital to the company and lead to creationof jobs.  Most of such gains are from secondary market sales--sales of stock from one rich person to another.  Secondary market sales have absolutely nothing to do with job creation or entrepreneurship: they have everything to do with acquiring more money with taxes that are at extremely low preferential rates. 

Similarly, getting dividends from a corporate enterprise has nothing to do with job creation--they just make the corporate stock holder richer at a preferential tax rate (under the 'temporary'[ provision enacted in 2003 and extended several times since).   Many 'freshwater' economists and many tax professionals argue for "integrating" the corporate tax and the tax on dividends or outright elimination of the corporate tax, claiming that  the dividend tax represents a 'double' (and therefore wrong) taxation of corporate profits.  That logic has led to an increasingly rich variety of corporate loopholes built by Congress into the Code--from the various expensing and bonus depreciation provisions (letting corporations reduce their taxable income compared to their actual business profits by claiming a deduction for capital expenditures) to various preference gimmicks, such as the "domestic manufacturing deduction" that provided a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate to all kinds of industries, including many processes that few would consider to qualify for "manufacturing." 

 But the double taxation claim is merely that--a claim based on the way the theor treats corporate entities.  Economists been unable to prove empirically that shareholders actually bear the burden of the corporate tax.  But even if they do, there are other reasons having to do with institutional power and the sustainability of democracy for supporting a corporate tax.  If you start out thinking that "only people pay taxes", you would likely conclude that "corporations can't pay taxes; therefore, the corporate tax is 'really' being paid by the owners of the corporation."  Of course, we used to say that only people can vote, so only people should be allowed to spend money on campaign speech.  Now the Supreme Court--which has treated corporations as "persons" under the Constitution since the nineteenth century--has decided that corporations have free speech rights that are broad enough to allow them to use their vast resources to influence who gets elected.  Thus, corporatism has paved the way for corporations to buy elections and then lobby for the laws and regulations that suit them, while arguing that corporations shouldn't pay any taxes to support the government that grants them various subsidies through the election/lobbying/regulation (deregulation) process.  It has supported the US movement towards "free trade" agreements, such as NAFTA, that have been difficult for the poor in countries with whom we trade, for environmental protections in the U.S., and  for locally owned businesses and local workers in the U.S.

If you avoid the corporatist agenda and start out with the assumption that corporations pay tax (because we have treated such entities as taxpayers under the Code), then you can recognize that corporate tax policy can be set to permit reasonable profits and to disincentivize unreasonable--i.e., societally undesirable--behavior.  An example would be the problem of corporate consolidation in a globalized economy, which provides inordinate power to multinational entities (I have called them quasi-sovereigns) and significantly reduces the power of ordinary employees. 

To understand something about the problem of corporate consolidation (as if the 2007-08 financial crisis caused by "too big to fail" financial institutions shouldn't have been enought), read the book Methland: The Death and Life of an American Small Town, by Nick Reding (Bloomsbury 2009).  In trying to understand the causes of the meth explosion in U.S. rural towns, it details the devastating effect of corporate consolidation on rural workers and economies--Big Agriculture and Big Pharma essentially bought out the vertical processes (for Ag, from seed to table, with a few firms like Cargill, Tyson, and ADM controlling huge swaths of the American food system).  In the process of gaining control, they consolidated many small, local producers, shut out unions, sought-out illegal immigrant labor to avoid wage and benefits laws, and dropped wages--in one case, wages for workers in an Iowa meat processing plant dropped overnight from around $18 an hour to less than $6 an hour, with a simultaneous cut off of benefits. See Methland, at 69 (noting the decline in wages when Cargill took over the formerly locally owned Iowa Ham plant in 1987). 

"[T]he evolution of the meth epidemic had occurred in lockstep with three separate economic trends that had contributed to the dissolution of small-town United States.  ...  And the things that spurred this simultaneous rise and fall: the development of Big Pharmaceuticals, Big Agriculture, and the modern Meican drug-trafficking business."  Id. at 109.

***

"By 1999 ... Cargill-Ecxel [an agribusiness plant in Ottumwa Iowa] placed newspaper advertisements in the poork, industrial border towns of Jarez and Tijuana offering two free months' rent to workers who could make it to Ottumwa from Mexico.  For Cargill and the rest of the packing conglomerates, employing illegals would appear to have been the best of all possible situations, for the simple reason that these employees, lacking legal identification, didn't technically exist, and therefore had no rights.  Nor were they apt to argue with the harsh conditions of an industry that continues today to have the highest rate of employee injury in the United States.  A failed 2001 federal criminal case brought against a Tyson plant in Shelbyville, Tennessee made clear that corporations would essentially not be held liable for employing or recruiting illegal immigrants to work in the plants.  Despite the fact that two Shelbyville managers were caught on tape by federal investigators asking human traffickers for five hundred undocumented workers over four months, Tyson's defense team successfullyh maintained that it's too difficult for Tyson employees to determine who's who among legal and illegal employees.  The ruling institutionalized the notion that employers of immigrants are not beholden to offering the same rights to workers that other companies must, for the simple reason that they don't know--and don't need to know--who works for them."  Id. at 153.

***

"Consider what used to happen in Oelwein, Iowa before the large scale consolidation in the 1980s and 1990s of almost every niche of the food-production chain.  Corn farmers...would have bought seed from the local seed company.  Once harvested, that corn would go to a grain elevator, also locally owned.  It would be shipped to a small feedlot in order to fatten cattle raised in Nebraska, Wyoming, Florida or Arizona; or perhaps it would go to a dairy in northern Missouri, a chicken farm in Indiana, or a pork outfit in Kansas.  The variables were infinite and the market was dynamic.  The barge, truck or railroad car that carried the grain was likely independently owned, too, as would have been the pigs, cows, and chickens it fed.  At each stae, the price would have to be 'discovered' as multiple potential customers vied to handle the product, with competition keeping the price 'true'... in the context of the marketplace.  Eventually, the Oelwsin corn used to feed sows in Topeka might return to Oelwein in the form of hocks to be disassembled, packaged, and shipped at the Iowa Ham plant... From there, a whole new market ... would take over in order to distribute the food and sell it at the retail level, perhaps at the grocery once owned by the Leo family (which today is an IGA).  James and Donna Lein would have been the essential building blocks in a vibrant system in which the variables contributed at all stages to what's called the 'social capital' of rural communities.

Beginning with the precedent set in 1987 with the IBP takeover of Hormel in Ottumwa--and the subsequent takeover of Iowa Ham by Gillette--a few companies would come to control most of the U.S. food business. ... Price discovery no longer happens; the value chain is controlled by a limited number of entities.  Seed is not sold; it's biogenetically engineered by companies like Monsanto, which entered into a joint venture with Cargill in 1998.  Cargill--not the farmer--owns the corn this is grown [under contract]....  In the Illinois and Ohio river valleys, Cargill owns 50 % of the grain elevators and other storage facilities.  Along with Tyson, Swift and the National Beef Packing Company, Cargill owns 83.5% of the beef packing inustry [and so on for turkey production, flour milling, ethanol production, animal feed plants, and soybean crushing]. Id. at 169-160.

***

Once competition has been annihilated ... the surviving companies, like Cargill, begin to effect political decisions through their enormous lobbying capabilities.  The government no longer governs unimpeded: it does so in tandem with the major companies. Id. at 161 (citing Douglas Constance, a rural sociologist at Sam Houston State University, Huntsville Texas).

This loss of local ownership through massive consolidation of business enterprises was a change orchestrated from the top of the U.S. government under Reagan's policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts (and loosening of tax and antitrust mechanisms that had worked against consolidation), and militarization.  It is a change continued today through the more and more flexible tax regulations and Code provisions governing tax-free reorganizations.  These policy approaches supporting consolidation of enterprises both vertically and horizontally favor the development of powerful corporations that can influence governmenbt in their favor while demanding subsidies (bonus depreciation, expensing, and other tax loopholes that have steadily reduced corporate taxes well below 25% for most of those that pay them at all, even while the rates remained statutorily at 35%.  Looking at the way corporate consolidation has harmed rural America should lead us to ask whether reversing the policies favoring such consolidation--such as making tax-free reorganizations much more difficult, pursuing anti-trust violations under new theories that look to the problems inherent in quasi-sovereign corporate entities, charging corporate and other businesses an expatriation fee equal to the increase in value of business assets while in the United States--may not be worth considering as one step in remedying both the "too big to fail" and "quasi-sovereign" problems while also providing resources to address the thin safety net and falling wages of the bottom of the income distribution.

For more ideas on inequality and its relation to a dynamic, growing economy and more stable society, see Mike Kimel's post on Angry Bear, The Pelzman Effect: Why Economic Growth Has Slowed in the US over Time.

On Baucus's Support for the R&D Credit

Max Baucus resides soundly to the right of center on tax policy.  He hasn't been willing to set aside the prejudices that grow within the Beltway favoring the high-income elite through tax subsidies for their particular kind of income, and so he has actually fought FOR (rather than against) reductions in estate taxes, reductions in capital gains taxes, reductions in taxes on multinational corporations, and other tax provisions extraordinarily favorable to the manager-owner "uber" class of the rich and superrich.

Given that background, it is not surprising that Baucus is pushing his own pro-wealth agenda in coordination with the right-wing Congressional fringe's ideological economic terrorism on deficit reduction (translate--benefit reduction for the middle class and poor; subsidy extension for the upper class and extraordinarily wealthy).  So today, Bloomberg reports his stand at a Finance Committee hearing in support of the Baucus-Hatch bill to expand the credit for research and experimentation and make it permanent.  Richard Rubin, Baucus Seeks Permanent Research Tax Credit to End 'Yo-Yo', Bloomberg.net (Sept. 20, 2011).

 Baucus thinks we need to expand and make permanent this provision that is a particularly generous benefit for industries that are already paying low tax and rolling in cash (and often offshoring jobs), such as information technology companies  and Big Pharma, because the credit "has been like a yo-yo, up and down, up and down."   

The problems with the credit's supposedly acting as an incentive to domestic research are manifold.  Research takes place over a period of years, not within a few months.  Companies that need to do research to stay on the innovation edge and therefore stay competitive will do that research whether or not there is a credit--they would always get a deduction for the expenses of the research, so the credit is merely 'icing on the cake' giving a tax subsidy to businesses that happen to be more research intensive for research that they would do anyway.  Except that the credit is available for much of what is really 'tweaking around the edges', not genuine research that advances the innovation ball.  Much of that kind of basic research has been done at universities where academics are somewhat freer to explore ideas because they are interesting rather than because there is quick money waiting around a nearby bend.  (I say somewhat freer because as the federal government and states get stingier with higher education funding for public universities, academics are pressed more and more to do "bespoke" applied research that gets corporate dollars to the campus and is rewarded most if it translates quickly to industry profits.)  Furthermore, the credit has often been approved after the fact--when it couldn't possibly incentivize more research in the United States or elsewhere: in those cases, it serves as one more cog in the corporatist machine that provides extra low federal income tax rates to US multinationals and does essentially nothing to create more jobs in the US.  Moreover, the R&D credit is a typical subsidy-generated catch-22:  by favoring those industries that can most easily fudge research or claim something 'new' that is merely a slight deviation from existing items in order to extend intangible property rights like copyrights and patents, the R&D credit ultimately favors development of the very kind of property that is most easily offshored to subsidiaires in order to reduce companies' US taxation (while retaining actual ownership of the intellectual property and of the funds it generates).   Finally, there's little research to show the effectiveness of the R&D credit in increasing the amount of research or creating more research jobs:   I suspect if you compared federal direct spending on basic university research to the indirect tax expenditure for the R&D credit, you'd find that direct spending on basic research was multiple times more effective in funding the creation of new ideas and the creation of new US jobs (including many research assistants).

Right wing rhetoric about how capitalism is based on 'free markets' bites the dust when there is a chance for a government subsidy via a tax expenditure provision like the R&D credit, doesn't it.  Baucus should quit catering to his wealthy donor/Big Business base and start acting like a real statesman on tax policy.

 

We're being bamboozled--debt ceiling, cuts to ordinary folks' programs, and the corporatist state continues apace

I almost can't stand watching or reading the news these days and have delayed posting on this blog because it seems there is a need to repeat the same suggestions over and over again.  Don't cave to the right.  Don't cut important social welfare programs that have enabled this country since the 1930s to treat its elderly and vulnerable populations with respect.  Quit trying to strip unions of power--they are one of the important ways that ordinary people can emplower themselves to demand a share of the prooductivity profits their labor has produced.  Quit repeating the garbage free market mantras suggesting that the wealthy investors and managers are entrepreneurs (they're not generally) and that allowing such gross accumulation of wealth as our current CEO pay of 3-400 times the salary of average workers (earning in a half day what a worker earns in a year) is somehow necessary to a good  economy in a democratic political system.  Allowing the owners and managers to continue to reward themselves with grossly oversized compensation and profits packages so that they can maintain their 20,000 square feet marble palaces with kitchens that only a caterer needs (and that the denizens of the house hardly ever use on their own) is just one of the excesses of the brute capitalism that the 'tea partiers' and other right-wing economic policy gurus are supporting.

This free market, brute capitalism where workers are expendable and the entire economy is forced to support the accumulation of wealth at the top is what we have in fact pushed on (and sometimes assisted in imposing on) developing nations in the past .  Think Argentina--where the Chicago Boys oversaw the decimation of the economy and the imposition of austere conditions on the majority so that the economy could be 'remade' to suit the owners of capital (including foreign investors and multinationals). Think Brazil, where in the 1960s we helped their military coup against a leftish president in order to support the ability of US multinationals to continue exploiting Brazilian resources. 

But now the right is so invigorated, through its ability to bamboozle the American people and elect a majority of economic extremists in the House who either don't understand history well enough to know that they are speaking gibberish, or don't care.  They are determined to undermine the meagre social welfare system of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with constant untruths about 'bankruptcy' and similarly misleading statement on almost every issue.  Presidential candidates who make up facts are toasted by the purportedly 'leftleaning' mainstream media (this assertion itself a made-up fact used to continue to bamboozle the people).

The most outrageous spectacle of all is the pontificating dogmatic right in the House and Senate, threatening to cause a U.S. default on the debt ceiling issue in order to pursue their ideological dream of a 'pure' economy.  Their economic model is a disgraced one --the free market, corporatist model that ensures that the small, wealthy investor class is doing well and that Big Business gets what it wants but doesn't give a damn for ordinary folks, whatever verbiage about caring for workers, and ordinary people with mortgage difficulty, etc. they spout.

Truth is, folks, you don't get an economy working well for ordinary people when you (i) make pledges NEVER to increase taxes, (ii) reject cuts in the grossly overlarge military expenditures this country makes in order to secure the world's resources for its multinational enterprises (that then lobby for close to zero taxation on their obscene profits from that secured wealth), or (iii) try to solve all perceived fiscal problems by taking it out of the hide of ordinary folk, thus  stifling the real economy (the one where workers work in businesses that serve local people and that work generates profits that are shared with workers and owners in a way that leads to expansion of the local economy based on the broad-based workers' participation in it) and at the same time bringing the kind of class warfare that the Friedman school has long waged on Latin America and other Third World countries right here to America.  The result of those kinds of policies is concentration of income, wealth, and influence at the top, with ordinary folks in the middle class struggling just to stay even.

The idea that you cannot tax natural resource extractive industries more (by taking away the tax expenditures subsidies that literally hand them outsize profits on a silver platter) when they are making windfall profits is absurd.  The idea that you cannot reimpose a decent estate tax on the estates of the wealthiest 2% in the country, to assist with meeting the heartfelt needs of the struggling middle and lower classes, is pathetic.  The suggestion that you cannot increase taxes on financial transactions and increase capital requirements in banks to stifle the too-rapid innovation and liquidity within the financial institutions that underlies the crisis we just went through (and the worse one we will suffer within the decade if we don't enact even stronger reforms than already in Dodd-Frank) reflects the dogmatic fixation on service to the wealthy investors and financiers that permeates the right-wing in Congress.

Folks. we can't let them do this.  Congress is supposed to serve the people, and this 'tea party'/right-wing extremism that was reflected in Newt Gingrich's 'contract on America' and John Boehner's contract with the investor class is the worst of class warfare.

There was a time when the neo-imperialists and corporatists didn't dare do the same thing in America that they were  pushing for, and secreting doing in Third world countries.  Exploiting the environment without a care for the pollution that ordinary people suffer in their daily lives.  (Think of the Banana Republic attitudes of United Fruit  and  the Latin American oil enterprises conducted by US multinationals.)  Supporting militaristic regimes with a right wing flavor and a taste for torture and imprisonment of radical left thinkers. (Think Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc.)  Labeling governing concepts that pay a lot of attention to the needs of ordinary people as 'subversive' and 'socialist' in order to bring up myths of communistic monsters that hide under the bed and eat the economy.  (Think Cuba and Brazil, especially, and Chile, and now Venezuela.)  All these tactics exist to keep ordinary people in their place as workers who get a pittance of their productivity profits and are "flexible" (meaning can be fired upon short notice by private equity firms flipping companies for their own (preferentially taxed) profits) while the military can control the resources and make good deals (for US multinationals and the military leaders, not for the people of the exploited country).  Read Chomsky's "Year 501" for a (somewhat rambling) account of the neo-liberal corporatist agenda in Latin America.

But now those same ultra corporatist, class-warfare policies are being implemented right here, in the open, with brazen disregard for our historical social contract, for the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable amonst us, all in the name of keeping the 'investor class" and Big Business (generally one and the same, since the investor class is mostly the owners and managers of Big Business) happy.

They paper it over with talk, as Joe Lieberman does in calling for cuts to Medicare, for 'bipartisanship"  or they claim the US is living beyond its budget because it doesn't pay its bills.  But of course they don't really care about that, since the budget put forward by the Republican House majority carved a multi-trillion dollar hole.  IN other words, they don't pay attention to their own rhetoric.  They just want to use the (absurd in itself) requirement in the US that we have a debt ceiling extension vote as an opportunity to blackmail the American people to get concessions on their favored targets--the programs that ameliorate, somewhat, the brute capitalism of the American economic system after forty years of reaganism, friedmania, and the rest of the Chicago School garbage that has been treated as "God's truth" so long by politicians that they don't even realize, perhaps, that they are letting a bunch of mathematicians who like to escape the real world into made-up formulas decide the policies for the nation.

Big Business has had its enablers in place for four decades--Grover Norquist, the Koch brothers and their 'tea party' followers, the various propaganda tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the rest  that have spent millions to brainwash Americans into thinking that the failed 'free market' ideas of Milt Friedman and Alan Greenspan and Wall Street are the only way to go.  It has a majority on the Supreme Court willing to be extraordinarily activist in overturning precedents on class action lawsuits (a way for ordinary people to empower themselves against Big Business) and free speech (a way for corporations and their owners/managers to control the political debate through the use of their overwhelming dollar power).  And that right-wing majority is serving its masters well, while Big Business's minions in Congress continue to roll over to make sure that the right-wing panacea of deregulation, militarization, tax cuts, and privatization contines apace. 

The US debt burden is high, but we are not Greece or Ireland or even Portugal.  We have a strong economy.  We have our own monetary system, unlike the Euro nations that are facing much higher debt burdens and can't individually control their monetary flows.  Austerity measures like the IMF has imposed on Latin America to satisfy foreign investors (not the natives of those countries) and like the Euro world is now imposing on its own members are not needed here (and probably are the wrong answer there as well).  Those measures are driven again by the failed corporatist economic model that assumes that the entire world should be run to satisfy the wishes of financial institutions, big money investors and the big multinational corporations that they own and manage. 

The world should be run to satisfy the needs of ordinary people.  Banks should be stripped of the power to create a world-wide crisis with their haystacks of derivatives that catch flame much too easily.  Big Business should make do with lower profits, paying their workers more and their managers (and owners) less and paying their fair share of taxes.  Hedge fund managers should pay tax on their "carried interest" compensation like ordinary people, and private equity firms should be subject to much more red tape that makes it much harder to buy companies and take them private in order to fire their workers.   In fact, consolidation and mergers among big businesses should be made much more difficult through new limitations on the tax-free restructuring provisions. Unionization should be strengthened, in order to give ordinary Americans something with which to have leverage over the hierarchical authorities that undermine economic growth by concentrating everything on the investor class.

Let's start a letter and call-in campaign to every Republican legislator in the coutnry, telling them that we are sick and tired of being treated as lambs led to the slaughter in order to place endless platters on the tables of the rich.  Tax policy should be based on what works, not on ideological dogma that has been the underlying cause of catastrophes and crises worldwide. 

 

Right-Wing Tax Rhetoric--defining a tax increase

Grover Norquist, a right-wing propagandist who is pushing the no taxes/starve the government/redistribution to the owners and managers of multinationals agenda, seems to define anything as a tax increase if it involves 'his people' paying more.  Cutting subsidies for the poor-- Social Security benefits,  medicare,  medicaid,  unemployment--those aren't tax increases.  But cutting tax expenditures in the Code that function the same way as subsidies for the wealthy--those are tax increases in Norquist's anti-tax book.

Look, folks.  Everybody thinks that some government spending is wasteful, we just don't agree on which things.  And Nobody really likes to pay taxes--we'd all rather spend money on ourselves, our families, even our favorite charities than not have it to dispense ourselves.  But when you get down to it, there is no such thing as a good society that doesn't have a workable tax collection system and a workable social consensus that trusts government, relies on government representatives to make the mostly difficult decisions about spending and tax collection, and pays taxes willingly because there are so many good things that taxes support that we cannot do for ourselves as individuals and can only do acting collectively through government--like public transportation, public schools, food safety, water safety, environmental protection, natural resource protection, parks, and similar public infrastructure.

So we need taxes.  And then we need a fair way to collect them.  Getting rid of subsidies in the tax code that coddle one group unreasonably--i.e., with no commensurate gain for the public good--is a good idea.  Talking about it as a "tax increase" is a bad idea, because it increases tax fairness to get rid of it.

Norquist calls all such things tax increases because his propaganda machine wants Americans to think poorly of their government and think poorly of taxes.  When that happens, it is easier for the elite at the top (owners and managers of most of the financial assets and wealth), to gain control of the system and pass more and more tax cuts (and tax expenditure subsidies) favoring themselves, while eliminating more and more of the social programs that take the edge off brutal vcapitalism and render democracy possible in a mostly capitalist economy.

Tom Coburn is at least challenging his own party to recognize this truth about elimination of tax expenditures.  Eliminating a tax break shouldn't be viewed as a tax increase, even among die-hard right-wingers sworn to keep taxes low for arbitrary or proven wrong reasons.

Read Rubin's article on "Chicken Breeders Face Tax-Cut Hawks in Senate Ethanol Showdown, June 14, 2011, Bloomberg.net.  Note that S 782 was defeated by a 40-59 vote.  See Senate Rejects Bid to Kill Ethanol Tax Break, Bloomberg.net, June 14, 2011.

Thinking about Inequality and Fairness in Tax Policy--Part I

As most of my readers know, the underlying theme of this blog is democratic egalitarianism--the idea that institutions within our society should pay attention to inequalities and that policies to redress inequalities are supportive of true democracy.  It is not that we will achieve perfect economic equality--that is not possible and likely not even a desirable end.  But we do need to counter the tendency of human systems to concentrate desirable attributes in a tiny powerful elite.  That is, human systems tend to redistribute desirable attributes upwards.  Income, wages, wealth, health care, housing, natural resources, human capital opportunities--all these things that people need to live a decent life tend to be redistributed and allocated to those who already have more of them.  Property begats property, and putting the owner class first begats a situation in which the owner class owns even more of whatever is valuable to own, and therefore commands, even more, the ability to keep the majority of the population in a state of quasi-servitude.  In a democratic society with a primarily capitalist economy, one of government's primaryh purposes is to enable individual freedom for all by countering the brute power of the capital-owning elite and redistributing those resources downwards.

One way that a majority of Americans has favored for achieving this necessary justice result is progressive taxation policies--taxing the wealthy/higher income at a higher rate (or even on a broader base--to wit, the corporate tax).  When there is progressive taxation, the gains that the elite have made merely because they are in the elite and hold the keys to power are marginally restrained.  But more importantly, those revenues then can be used to fund government programs that expand public goods and create opportunities for the vast majority with significantly fewer resources, through programs like unemployment compensation, health care, public education from K-12 to university, public transportation, etc..

So we need to ask a few questions about our system today.  Is it working or is the tendency for income, wealth and other favorable attributes to accumulate at the top overpowering the means of redress that exist?  And does the population have a clear understanding of the democratic egalitarian principle, so that people will vote in the best interest of the continued functioning of a democratically premised society?

I fear the answer today in the US is no, to both questions.  The US has long used its military might to support its wealthy elite and their multinational corporations.  Today, that seems even more exaggeratedly so. 

Think about the invasion of Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan and the continuing erosion of human rights (read--the rights of ordinary Americans to go about their lives freely choosing how they will live and where they will go and what they will do) which has inevitably fed the military-industrial complex of arms manufacturers, private mercenary outfits, natural resource extraction, financialization of the economy and general globalization trends, all of which are part and parcel of the corporatist agenda for ensuring continuing power to Big Business and its owners and managers. 

And the populace is ill-informed about the true mechanisms of individual freedom.  They have been sold a bill of goods by the right-wing so-called "think tanks" supported, by and large, by wealthy owners of Big Business and the multinational corporations that benefit most by keeping the population ignorant.  The fantasy concept of a "free market" has been pushed as the answer to all ills, even though there is no such thing as a free market.  (And in fact the wealthy elite and Big  Business have benefited from scores of policies designed to provide them distinct advantages, from CIA and military support against popular leftist regimes in Latin America that threatened multinationals grip on natural resources and labor there, to tax and spending policies in the US that favor large corporations over small, localized businesses.)  The people have been told that if only the government will support the "competitiveness" of its multinational corporations, jobs and good fortune will eventually trickle down to them, even though of course the immediate observable result will be additional wealth to the owners and managers of the multinational corporations.  The jobs and good fortune don't trickle down, however.  With no commitment to place or people, multinationals and their owners and managers take the rentier profits and shove them into their own safes (often more investment in exploitative industries in third world countries and private equity ventures that exploit workers by dividing and conquering to eliminate unions).

Think about the current focus of the ultra-right House leadership and Senate minority and the ultra-right governors in many of our states today.  They use divisiveness to turn private workers (long deprived of any real rights to associate in unions by law and practice, and therefore suffering through a decades-long diminution in both their wages/incomes and their general welfare  from health care, pension rights, and job security) against their public counterparts who have generally maintained somewhat stronger unionization and and benefit rights, in order to justify even further curtailment of public employee unionization and benefit rights.  They argue deficits (after supporting costly militarization and warmongering in Iraq and Afghanistan, privatization, deregulation and other legislation intended to push us into the greatest deficits ever) in order to stifle all government programs existing to aid the non-elite classes, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation.  They suddenly find a problem with increasing the debt limit, after borrowing trillions to come to the aid of their bankster cohort, without imposing conditions that would require the banks to treat ordinary Americans fairly.  They argue for the elimination of the little progress made from 2008-2010 in enacting a weak form of health care reform (weak because it favors the Big Insurance companies and their managers and owners' continued rent profits rather than including some form of single-payer, such as the "public option" in the national exchanges) and financial reform (weak because the Dodd-Frank legislation failed to create a fully independent consumer financial protection agency and failed to restrain sufficiently banksters' ability to gamble other people's money to make windfall profits out of a proprietarily managed system that operates to their favor and results in privatization of gains with socialization of losses).  They stand at a line in the sand against all tax increases for the wealthy, on the claim that the wealthy are the people who create jobs (see Eric Cantor on the position that no debt limit increase is possible without a guarantee protecting the wealthy from tax increases), even though the wealthy are not entrepreneurs, have sufficient wealth to invest in their businesses even with high tax payments, and don't do it. 

New jobs will be created when there is a broader middle class with extra money to spend on things that make life better, not when the wealthy have even more money to sock away somewhere because they can't possibly spend all they have.

So if we ask the question--what, then, is a fair tax policy, isn't the answer fairly straightforward?  In any context, it is the policy that favors the most redistribution from the elite to everyman while raising sufficient revenues to provide adequate investment in public infrastructure that moves everybody forward and human capital development (like public education).

Readers, what say you?

If not, why not?  Readers comments welcome.

Fundamental injustice: Charles Hugh Smith's Take

 Yesterday I commented on Robert Reich's book, After Shock, in which he urged us to recognize the fundamental cause of the 2007-2008 Great Recession lay in our imbalanced economy in which income and wealth is becoming more concentrated and consolidated in the hands of wealthy elites, while the vast majority of Americans are stagnating or struggling just to hold even.  Others have noticed the long-term consequences of such substantial income and wealth inequalities.  For example, Charles Hugh Smith writes, on of two minds.com, Apr. 20, 2011, about "The Fundamental INjustice that is Poisoning the Nation."

There is a fundamental injustice that is poisoning the soul of the nation, and if it is not openly addressed then the nation will face the explosive consequences of institutionalized injustice. (bolding in original)

Simply put, it is this: those responsible for the nation's financial crisis and its catastrophic after-effects are not paying for the consequences of their actions--it is the innocent, those who were not responsible, who are paying the price.

You can call it whatever you want: the Anarchy of the Super-Rich (as per Paul Farrell), the Financial Power Elite, the financial Oligarchy, Plutocracy or Corporatocracy, or the unprecedented concentration of financial wealth and political power in a financialized post-industrial economy. Whatever you call it, we all know this class of financiers and its minions got away with high financial crimes.

The biggest quibble I have with this is that it limits the "crime" to the "financiers and its minions."  In truth, the guilty are the entire upper crust--CEOs, CFOs and other high-priced managers of multinational corporations and the wealthy elite who own most of the stock, municipal bonds and other financial assets--who continue to benefit extraordinarily from the low cost of borrowing, offshoring, de-unionization, privatization, deficit-focus, and "entitlement narrowing" mentality that has been pushed by right-wing think tanks who still proclaim that just getting government out of the way (including by use of the favored three: deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts) so the free market decides winners and losers will create jobs and stimulate growth.  Of course, in this age of "truthiness" rather than truth-telling, none of the pushers bother to acknowledge that the favored three policies have apparently had exactly the opposite effect throughout the four decades of the reagonomics experiment--more concentration of wealth and income at the top; puny economic growth; and fewer jobs (and especially fewer good jobs) for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

 Smith goes on to make the point that I have been hammering with my focus on democratic egalitarianism--unless we ride herd on the forces that are consolidating wealth at the top, using tax policy and other policies to do so, we face the rapid deterioration of the institutions that make possible a democratic society.

[T]he really catastrophic losses are to the foundations of democracy and the economy. Democracy has been subverted--...--and the economy has been incentivized to favor poisonously addictive financialization and the shadow institutions of corruption, fraud, embezzlement, favoritism, collusion and misrepresentation of risk. This might be summarized as the protection of vested interests, engineered and overseen by the partnership of the ever more intrusive Central State and the nation's Financial Power Elite.

There is a second part to this fundamental injustice: look who will pay for the bailouts, guarantees and the interest on the borrowed trillions. ... Those who the Central State can easily tap: taxpayers who earn most of their income from wages, and those politically weak players dependent on government payments.

Now that the bills of the bailout are coming due, the State isn't going after GE for more taxes.  ...  No, the politically easy thing to do is raise taxes on wage earners and trim entitlements, because all the government needs to do is send down the orders and it is done: the taxes are withheld and the bennies trimmed.