ataxingmatter

Everybody's Talkin' 'Bout Taxes--especially Wealth Taxes and Mark-to-Market of Capital Gains

Not surprisingly for those of you who are members of the ABA Tax Section, there is a meeting of that group next week in Florida when a thousand tax lawyers (give or take a few) will be talking about everything from basis to wealth taxes; GILTI, BEAT, Dual BEIT, to EITC.  Yours truly will be on a panel of the Tax Policy and Simplification Committee, meeting Friday morning, to discuss how the tax system should respond to the wealth gap.  Joining me on the dais will be Roger Royse (moderator and panelist), Rich Prisinzano from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and Dan Shaviro, Wayne Perry Professor of Taxation at NYU and a blogger at Start Making Sense.  We'll talk about the income and wealth gap data, including the different perspectives of  Saez & Zucman, serving as wealth tax advisers to Senator and Democratic presidential candidate hopeful Elizabeth Warren; Penn Wharton Budget Model, applying a more standard budget model to determine harms and benefits of the Warren Wealth Tax; and Cato INstitute.  We'll also discuss Sen. Ron Wyden's proposal for a mark-to-market system of capital gains taxation (including a lookback charge of some kind for hard-to-value assets, Prof. (and former Cleary partner) Edward Kleinbard's Dual Business Enterprise Income Tax proposal, and other means of making the regular tax system more progressive such as rates, removing the capital gains preference, and reinvigorating the estate tax that has been the object of a GOP murder squad for the last 20-30 years at least.

Meanwhile, today in Florida there was a Tax Policy Lecture at  the University of Florida on Taxing Wealth, with Alan Viard, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, David Kamin, Professor at NYU School of Law, Janet Holtzblatt, Senior Fellow at the Tax Policy Center, and William Gale, Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy7 at the Brookings Institution. 

Last fall, the Tax Policy Center held a program on Taxing Wealth (webcast recording available at this link) with Mark Mazur, Ian Simmons, Janet Holtzblatt, Beth Kaufman, Greg Leiserson, Victoria Perry, and Alan Viard.  Sony Kassam from Bloomberg Tax served as moderator.  The link has a series of power point presentations from that meeting as well, for your edification.

Ian Simmons, for example, includes the letter from billionaires dated June 24, 2019, asking that "[t]he next dollar of new tax revenue should come from the most financially fortunate, not from middle-income and lower-income Americans."  Such a tax "enjoys the support of a majority of Americans--Republicans, Independents, and Democrats."  It's not a new idea, since all those millions of middle-income Americans who own their home "already pay a wealth tax each year in the form of property taxes on their primary form of wealth--their home."   The billionaires are asking "to pay a small wealth tax on the primary source of our wealth as well"--such as Elizabeth Warren's proposal, which would tax "only 75,000 of the wealthiest families in the country" (those with assets over $50 million) and would generate an estimated $3 trillion over ten years to "fund smart investments in our future, like clean energy innovation to mitigate climate change, universal child care, student loan debt relief, infrastructure modernization, tax credits for low-income families, public health solutions, and other vital needs."  All this is necessary because of the wealth gap: "[t]he top 1/10 of 1% of households now have almost as much wealth as all Americans in the bottom 90%." The signatories support a wealth tax because:

• it's a powerful tool for solving our climate crisis
• it's an economic winner for America through increased public investments
• it will make Americans healthier, addressing the difference in longevity (15 years) between the richest and the poorest Americans
• It's fair -- "[t]axing extraordinary wealth should be a greater priority than taxing hard work."
• It strengthens American freedom and democracy, since high levels of economic inequality lead to political power and pluotocracy and higher levels of distrust in democratic institutions
• It is patriotic -- 'The richest 1/10 of the richest 1% should be proud to pay a bit more of our fortune forward to America's future."

Janet Holtzblatt discussed whether wealth should be taxed, with a set of powerful powerpoint charts.  As she notes, there are a number of reasons to think taxing the wealthy is a good idea because it (slide 4) :

• curbs the accumulation of power that comes with the accumulation of wealth--and, I will add, this is power to get laws and regulations written in your favor, including tax laws, as well as power that allows pollution, rent-seeking, on-demand schedules for workers and other 'evils' that come with plutocracy
• ensures that the wealth pay their fair share of taxes
• finances new initiatives (child care, student debt relieve, climate change policies, housing initiatives)
• provides better data for research on wealth inequality

Those not supportive (or, as JH puts it, "less optimistic") suggest that (slides 5, 7)

• even with a wealth tax, the rich remain the richest and the most powerful
• incremental changes to current tax system would be more easily implemented
• wealth taxes would have a negative impact on savings, investment, entrepreneurship
• wealth taxes won't raise as much revenue as claimed
• OECD countries with wealth taxes haven't been all that successful (in 1990 12 had them, in 2018 only 3 still retained wealth taxes: Norway, Switzerland, and Spain)

There are lots of issues with wealth taxes: (slides 8-20)

• on what assets
• at what rate (tax burden will depend partly on rate of returns on investments
• using what exemption threshold (liquidity constraints at lower thresholds; taxing  middle income instead of wealthy)
• using what means to prevent tax avoidance (dependents' wealth with parents? include assets in family-run foundations? restrictive limits for trusts? exit taxes?)
• and tax evasion (enhance IRS enforcement, enhance penalties, enhance IRS access to third party data--but the wealthy have resources to battle IRS claims)
• assuming what actual amounts of tax revenues could be raised ("street fights over revenue estimates...among top public finance economists") (Slide 15)
  • how much wealth is there?  JH notes several 2016 estimates between 86.9 trillion and 101.2 trillion (slides 16-17) {Zucman  says just under $115 trillion]
    
    • Fed Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance ( 3 year intervals; leaves out Forbes 400 and some pension wealth)
    • estate tax data (adjusted for mortality probabilities and population)
    • income tax data (capitalized using assumed rates of returns)
  • how is that wealth distributed between the top 0.1% and the rest?  Bricker 2016 study estimates range from about 15% to 22%  (Slide 18)
  • how much wealth is hidden by "tax net misreporting rates"?  IRS 2016 misreporting: farms 71%; nonfarm proprietors 64%; CGs 27%; PS/SCorps/Estates/Trusts 16%  (slide 19)
  • how much tax revenues?  between 815 billion and  1.098 trillion between 2021-2030 (slide 22, Urban-Brookings TPC Microsimulation Model [ with lower thresholds and rates than those proposed by Warren]
  • who pays?  40,000 tax units in the top 1% minus the top 0.1%; 127,000 tax units in the top 0.1%,with those in the top 0.1% paying between 97% and 100% on the different options considered

Greg Leiserson discussed the idea of mark-to-market taxation (an idea that Ron Wyden has endorsed), in "Taxing wealth by taxing investment income: An introduction to mark-to-market taxation" (Sept 11, 2019).  The key to MTM taxation is that a tax is assessed annually on investments, whether or not they are sold or otherwise disposed of ('through a transaction that results in "realization" for federal income tax purposes).  The burden of such a tax falls predominantly on the wealthy, since those are the primary owners of bonds, stocks, real estate empires, and pass-through businesses that produce investment income, as well as the appreciation of those assets that is taxed currently as a capital gain on disposition.  Leiserson provides a chart (below) showing the nominal investment income of US households and nonprofits including an offset for inflation.

As he notes, much of this income is taxed at preferential capital gains rates, and much of the income tax is deferred because capital gains and losses are generally taxed only when the asset is sold.  Deferral amounts to a reduction in taxes paid under time-value-of-money principles.  But yet another way in which owners of investment assets escape taxation is the estate tax: appreciation in property in the estate (such as unrealized capital gains from stock that has appreciated in value significantly over decades) is never taxed, since the heirs get a step up in basis to market value, so that if the asset were then immediately sold, there would be no gain remaining.

MTM taxation eliminates the deferral advantage.  MTM taxation combined with elimination of the preferential rate for capital gains would  eliminate the preferential treatment of capital gains that exists in current law.  Leiserson notes the difficulties for a MTM system: which assets are covered, rate of tax applied, and whether there are special rules for volatility. Further, "[i]f a comprehensive system of mark-to-market taxation is enacted, then there would be no unrealized gains at death going forward, because gains will have been taxed on an annual basis, including in the year the person dies" so long as the system applies over some transition period to gains accrued prior to enactment.  Otherwise, the system would have to tax gains at death (repealing step-up in basis rule) or at any other disposition, including gifts, to ensure fair and equal treatment.  He suggests other measures--such as limiting the home sales capital gain exclusion or requiring mandatory distributions of pension account balances above a threshold, that would be reasonable in a MTM context.

One difficulty with MTM taxation is valuation of assets that are not regularly traded.  Ron Wyden's proposal suggests a lookback charge--an additional tax payment for assets not subject to MTM taxation that is collected upon disposition to account for the deferral value while still relying on realization as a trigger for taxation. Wyden and Leiserson suggest different possible methods.  One is to take the gain upon sale and allocate it ratably to each year between purchase and sale, compute the tax on each year's income at the rate applicable in that year, and then calculate interest on those unpaid taxes for the years til payment. Unrealized gains would be deemed realized on death or gift and taxed accordingly.

Three key ideas here:

• To protect lower and middle income taxpayers from the tax, there could be a lifetime gain  exemption threshold ($0.5 million, say) that has to be reached before the rules apply or an asset value threshold ($2 million; $10 million, etc.).  Under the latter, taxpayers would fall into and out of the MTM regime as assets fluctuate.  (The asset approach is suggested by Wyden.)
• The revenue raised is significant though it depends on the particular model.  Leiserson suggests MTM combined with elimination of the preferential rate on capital gains "could easily raise $1 trillion over the next decade--and potentially much more."  He notes that just eliminating the preferential CG rate gives a much lower estimate--that's because of "the ease of tax avoidance under current law such as the ready opportunity to defer tax by not selling assets and potentially avoid tax entirely through step up in basis--all while simply borrowing against these same assets to finance any spending."
• "The wealthiest 1 percent of families holds 31 percent of all wealth, and the wealthiest 10 percent holds 70 percent of all wealth."  "The highest-income 1 percent of families receives 75 percent of the benefit of the preferential rates for capital gains and dividends under current law." The wealthiest 10% would bear the burden of MTM reforms.

 

Of course, while everybody is talking about taxes, some of that talk is the same old endless market fundamentalist myth (Reaganomics) about how tax cuts are what make the economy grow and will actually pay for themselves -- in spite of near 4 decades of evidence to the contrary, where highest growth rates have generally been in times of higher tax rates, with some consideration for stimulus impact of tax cuts after periods of recessions.  See, e.g., NY Times editorial, There's No Such Thing as a Free Tax Cut (Jan 22, 2020).  The op-ed notes that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin "repeated the risible fantasy that the Trump administration's 2017 tax cuts will bolster economic growth sufficiently for the government to recoup the revenue it lost by lowering tax rates" [in the 2017 tax legislation] even though 2 years in, the "budget deficit has topped $1 trillion." This is because, as most of us who haven't drunk the Laffer-curve tax cut kool-aid know and the Times op-ed reiterates, "businesses responded to increased demand more than they did to the lower tax rates."  Nonetheless, we should not be surprised that the Trump Administration is talking about two "big ideas" for taxes if the man gets reelected:  1) cutting Medicare and Social Security: see, e.g., Trump Opens Door to Cuts to Medicare and Other Entitlement Programs, NY Times (Jan 22, 2020) and 2) passing another tax cut bill: see Steven Mnuchin Confirms Trump's New Tax Plan is Imminent, USNews (Jan 23, 2020).  Those two ideas go hand in hand. 

Though Trump doesn't dare state what he is really doing to his base, who he has deceived with typical right-wing rhetoric into thinking that he is trying to rightsize the economy to serve them when he instead engages in class warfare to stuff his own pockets, he is hip to hip with Newt Gingrich's desire to "starve the government" to create a huge deficit (we are up to $1 trillion in our new "gilded age economy") that then provides cover for the wealthy to suck in even more of the country's wealth by downsizing Medicare and Social Security, programs essential for those who are not among the wealthy. 

 

Bloomberg's Plan for Addressing Economic Inequality: not a wealth tax

A week ago (Jan 8, 2020), the New York Times described Michael Bloomberg's plan¹ for addressing the income and wealth inequality in the United States that has been a constant topic of discussion by Democratic candidates.  Briefly, as with the robber barons of Teddy Roosevelt's age, the wealth of the global commerce titans and particularly the private equity fund buyers and sellers of companies (and layers off of employees) has exploded over the last four decades in the US, beginning in earnest with Ronald Reagan's presidency.  Most of the benefits of productivity gains have gone to a very few people at the top, and the bottom 50% of the wealth distribution actually owns a smaller share of the nation's wealth than 40 years ago.  The top 1% have gained enormously, and the top 0.5% have been even more enriched.  We have ultra multibillionaires like Jeff Bezos who can pay $9 billion to his wife in a divorce settlement and still be the wealthiest man in the world with more than $130 billion in net worth.  He earns about $78.5 billion a year (counting value of his Amazon shares) or more than $6.5 billion a month² and thus exemplifies this new "gilded age" of ultrawealthy tycoons.  This exists at the same time that the Trump administration proposes work requirements that will eliminate food stamp aid for 700,000 of hungry Americans and, with other initiatives, will take  food stamps from 3.7 million beneficiaries who simply cannot get work that pays well enough to fund a sustainable lifestyle for themselves and their families.³  This will "save" the U.S. about $5.5 billion over five years--less than Bezos 'earns' in a month.  This disparity--$5.5 billion to feed 3.5 million hungry Americans versus provide a month's additional wealth for a person already wallowing in wealth like Jeff Bezos--is why it is clear that the US needs to figure out how to respond to the inequality crisis in order to protect American democracy and ensure Americans have a decent standard of living.

Bloomberg's plan seems to be a moderate stance like Obama and Biden that attempts to focus on factors other than the wealth gap and the accompanying power gap that wealth provides.  As the NY Times reports, he "frames the economic divide primarily in regional terms--and not along ... rich-versus-everyone-else class lines."¹  The Times article notes that his plan is not unlike the charge Obama gave to Joe Biden for the Middle Class Task Force.¹

Bloomberg's proposals for addressing the problem are similarly centered on things long discussed and tried that are difficult to do at a large enough scale to make any inroads into the inequality problem or the power gap problem. He is most definitely not proposing a wealth tax.  His proposals include a focus on education and skills training, infrastructure projects, and entrepreneurial training centers.  Although the GI Bill was a significant part of the post-WWII economic boom because it allowed vast numbers of returning veterans to get a college education, Bloomberg seems to be thinking more of apprenticeships and community colleges (training for a job) rather than university (training for a career and an approach to learning throughout life).  The Times notes his interest in raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, and encouraging unions while disallowing noncompetes for low- and middle-income jobs. 

All those are minimal steps that any progressive candidate should take, but while they may have marginal impact on middle class mobility, they will not do much at all to ease the income and wealth gap that has been caused by technology, globalization, and financialization of the economy together that has measured success almost solely from stock market numbers and thus allowed corporate and private equity tycoons to garner the major gains in productivity over decades while paying their workers too little (or moving offshore to pay even less), combined with a tax system that privileges wealth, including, among a host of others, extremely favorable corporate tax provisions after the 2017 tax legislation, ridiculously low maximum rates on ordinary income, carried interest provision, section 1031 exchanges, section 1202 exclusion for gains on original issue small business stock, capital gains preference, and an absurdly low flat estate tax above a too-high exemption amount with a step-up in basis for heirs. 

Bloomberg is a billionaire who is at least aware that the inequality in this country is problematic and needs to be addressed.  But like most of the "have-so-much" class, he shows little interest in what is truly required--a shift in the direction of redistribution to balance the distorted seesaw of billionaires getting all the height and the rest sitting at the bottom.  FDR's New Deal is said to have worked because the robber barons were scared that the proletariat would rise up in support of communism--the so-called 'red scare' behind the success of social security enactment.  There may not be a red scare now (though the Trump campaigners try to paint democratic socialist programs as communism), but there is a real likelihood that the contrast--and possibly real class warfare-- between the squalor and despair of poor families who work hard but cannot fend for themselves and rich kids with silver spoons that only grow bigger and bigger  may eventually threaten the global nation of the plutocrats.⁴

 

1 Jim Tankersley, Michael Bloomberg's Jobs Plan is Focused on Place over Class, New York Times (Jan 8, 2020).

2 Hillary Hoffower, We did the math to calculate how much money Jeff Bezos makes in a year, month, week, day, hour, minute, and second, BusinessInsider.com (Jan 9, 2020).

3 Phil McCausland, Trump administration proposals could cause millions to lose food stamps, NBC News (Nov. 30, 2019) (discussing proposed changes to SNAP program that would impose stricter work requirements, cap deductions for utility allowances and 'reform' the way states automatically enroll families when they receive other aid).  See also

4. See, e.g., Chrystia Freeland, Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich (2012) (described in The Guardian book review as "a necessary and at times depressing book about the staggeringly wealthy").  Freeland is neither Marxist nor socialist, and as I am reading the book, not evenappropriately skeptical of the amount of merit behind the plutocrats' self-claimed meritocracy.

Dan Shaviro (NYU) and Tim Smeeding (WISC) on NPR's Detroit Today Show

For those of you who may not have the opportunity to tune into Stephen Henderson's radio program Detroit Today on NPR, it might be useful to have a short summary of the January 9 discussion of the "wealth gap" from that program.

Background

Tax lawyers have traditionally talked of the "tax gap"¹  and frequently mentioned the growing "income gap" between the top 1% of the income distribution and the remaining 99%, but the "wealth gap"² discussion among tax lawyers, tax policy thinkers, economic analysts and indeed progressive legislators about the relative net assets of different segments of the population has become increasingly important as people have recognized the trend of increasing wealth for the top 0.1% in the US and stagnating wealth for most of the US population.  The wealth gap is even more significant when race/ethnicity is taken into account: the 400 wealthiest families in 2015 owned as much as the country's entire African-American population plus 1/3 of the Latino population.⁴  The median white household in 2011 had about $111 thousand in wealth, while the median black household had $7 thousand and the median Latino household had $8 thousand, with the impact of slavery and post-WWII homeownership policies being the underlying source of most of the disparities.³ See also How Ameria's Vast Racial Wealth Gap Grew: By Plunder, New York Times, Aug. 14, 2019.  The generational wealth gap is also worrisome: older Americans' wealth grew between 1989 and 2013 but all other age groups had their wealth decline.³  The gender wealth gap underlies the power distinction that lies at the bottom of the MeToo movement: women earn less than men for the same work at the same level, and they save less and are more likely to live in poverty in old age.

That means that children in this country born to families in the top 10% of the wealth distribution have enormous advantages from birth:  they are essentially guaranteed the best medical, educational, and institutional support imaginable, with every opportunity for learning and advancement laid before them.  Their parents can afford to ensure they are able to get into top colleges (e.g., Harvard alumni preferences for their children), meet the "right" people for success in their preferred field (the "connections" that wealthy families build), take a preferred non-paying internship in another city with family funds supporting living expenses and more, all the way up the ladders of success.  Children born into families in the bottom half of the wealth distribution face a struggle at every point along that ladder:  schools that are inadequately funded after decades of Republican concentration on assessment and hurdles rather than support and educational opportunities; lack of exposure to different possibilities and the people who can open doors into those possibilities; lack of funding to make it possible to accept an opportunity when it presents itself.

These wealth disparities don't just impact these choices--they also affect aging parents who have inadequate retirement savings, young adults who have inadequate resources to deal with sudden medical emergencies, or aspiring students who get tangled in the payday loan vicious cycle of ever-escalating interest payments. And the wealth gap is compounded by at least three key components of the US federal tax system: 

1. the income tax system that claims to be progressive yet has income tiers that ignore the escalating heights of the highest paid corporate managers, university presidents, and other high-income labor and a capital gains preference that privileges ownership over labor;
2. the estate tax system that has been a GOP target for decades that has too low a rate on too little income of the dynastic estates that the run up in wealth over the last four decades has created while passing the estate along to heirs without taking any tax bite because of the absurd step-up in basis rule;
3. the cap on the social security tax that requires even the poorest laborer to pay in while letting the CEO earning a $10 million annual salary pay on only a pittance of the total compensation.

The wealth gap has in some sense always existed, but it is increasing⁵ and today begins to look like the Gilded Age before the Great Depression.  While the tax system isn't solely responsible for the increasing wealth gap in this country, it has played a significant role in aggravating the problem and thus deserves focussed attention as a matter of tax policy.

Key Points from Dan Shaviro's Interview

Dan noted that the wealth gap had its beginning in the 19th century when the government didn't respond to increasing disparities.  The progressive era under Roosevelt and Wilson, then the New Deal era under FDR did see some reduction in the wealth gap, much of which could be attributed to the reduction in wealth because of the stock market crash and the Great Depression.

As wealth increases, power increases.  Even proposals that have huge public support are rejected by Congress--including the idea that corporations and the wealthy should be taxed more.

Finding policies to ameliorate this current situation is not easy.  There are a variety of ideas--Warren and Sanders have proposed wealth taxes, though there are  constitutionality concerns that might defeat such a tax given the current conservative Supreme Court.  And a wealth tax won't solve all the problems of inequality. Other ideas include more progressive income taxes or a mark-to-market system of taxing appreciation of capital assets.

The reasons for attempting to address the wealth gap are many, and include the need for better transportation, health care, education, end of life and geriatric care, etc. 

We live in a capitalist system, but markets don't work well for addressing all problems.  In particular, they don't work well for the kinds of things that are so important like health care and education. 

Any transition, of course, will be very difficult.  The top 10% own 77% of the wealth while the bottom 50% own less than 2%.  Those with financial wealth live very well indeed, since that wealth isn't taxed til it is used and may never be taxed.

 

Key Points from Timothy Smeeding's Interview

Understanding the wealth gap is critical, because wealth provides a "cushion for consequential life moments" such as when a parent covers a child's tuition or supports the child in their first apartment in a different city.

Deciding how to respond to the wealth gap is difficult, but various possibilities exist, including a wealth tax, a reinvigorated estate tax, elimination of the capital gains preferential rate compared to ordinary income, elimination of the carried interest provision that allows private equity managers to be compensated with capital gains at a 23.8% rate rather than a 38% plus 3.8% rate and avoid paying social security taxes, elimination of the one-time exclusion for capital gains on sales of residences, etc

There are many important institutional advantages that can better lives as well, especially providing access to health care and to university education.

Responding to a question about labor, Smeeding notes that unions will be important in areas such as the public sector, nursing, education.  But in the corporate context, an important change might be to consider bringing a labor voice to corporations' Boards of Directors.  Other possibilities are to reward corporations that reward their employees:  a tax break that goes only to corporations that raise their employees' wages, for example.

¹ Generally speaking, the tax gap is the difference between the tax burden owed and tax liabilities acknowledged and paid and thus provides some understandable standard for judging trends in compliance by taxpayers with their federal tax obligations. It is calculated periodically by the IRS and published on the website.  See The Tax Gap;  IR 2019-159 (Sept 26, 2019),  The 2019 document provides estimates for tax years 2011 through 2013 and shows an estimated average gross tax gap of $441 billion per year which, after enforcement efforts and late payments, yields a fibure of $381 billion a year.

² See, e.g.,  Lola Fadulu, Study Shows Income Gap between Rich and Poor Keeps Growing, With Deadly Effects, New York Times (Sept. 10, 2019) (summarizing research from the U.S. Government Accountability Office in August 2019 entitled Retirement Security: Income and Wealth Disparities Continue Through Old Age);  St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank Open Vault Blog, What Wealth Inequality in America Looks Like: Key Facts and Figures (Aug 14, 2019) (showing income distribution from 1989 to 2016 (before the impact of the highly distortive 2017 tax legislation) skewed to favor the top 10% of income earners at the expense of the bottom 90%).

³ See, e.g., Amelta Josephson, What is the Wealth Gap? SmartAsset.com (Jul 23, 2019) (noting that the CBO's 2013 wealth data showed a figure of $67 trillion for total family wealth, with the top 10% of families holding 76% of that total wealth (and having incomes of $942,000 a year or more).

⁴ See, e.g., Institute for Policy Studies, 2015.

⁵ See, e.g.,  Pedro Nicolaci da Costa, America's Humongous Wealth Gap is Widening Further, Forbes (May 29, 2019). Noting that "distribution is everything" in response to proclamations that the economy is healthy because of stock market trends or eomployment numbers, the article states that "a steady economic expansion and historically low jobless rate can mask deep inequalities in income and wealth that leave American families in vastly different financial situations."  It relies on a recent Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) report that shows that the poorest 50% are "getting crushed" by "rising inequalities."  The increase in net worth since 1989 (growing almost 4X the prior figure) has accrued mostly to the top of the distribution, with the bottom 50% seeing essentially zero net gains in wealth over 30 years.   Figure 2 from the article is duplicated below.

What is the GOP goal? A return to the "gilded age" (or worse)

When right-wing Roy Moore said that the time when America was great was during slavery, he revealed something key to the current GOP members of Congress and state legislatures--their primary goal is to return to a time when owners of property held all the keys to the kingdom and workers were just serfs expected to do as told and whose lives didn't really matter much to the boss capitalists.

Historian Nancy MacLean suggests that this is the reason for the tax bill's largesse to corporatists and the wealthy, the reason the GOP wants to undo Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and essentially all the progressive programs introduced in the twentieth century to form the basis for a thriving middle class and surging democratic union.  See Cahuncey DeVega, Historian Nancy MacLean on the right's ultimate goal: rolling back the 20th century, Salon.com (Dec. 13, 2017).

Here are some key points from the article.

1) "[T]he Democratic Party is terrible at translating complex questions of public policy into simple narratives that evoke emotion and, in turn, action from the American people." Id.

Indeed, having an able, sympathetic messenger who can translate the issues that truly matter into terms that make sense to ordinary people is something the Democratic Party lacked in the last election.  The tone deafness of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and, much of the time, Hillary Clinton, meant that ordinary people didn't understand that Trump is merely a blowhard capitalist who doesn't care if he cheats or lies or exploits other people so long as he gets notoriety and money, while the Democrats have been the party working for a decent sustainable economy, environmental protection and preservation, protection from pollution and diseases, and working wages for ordinary folk.

The GOP, on the other hand, has mastered the art of lying to the point that they can pat themselves on the back for fooling the majority of the people the majority of the time, while blaming anything that goes wrong on Democrats (even when it is--most of the time--entirely GOP policy that the 'wrong' occur).  So a tax bill that enriches the oligarchs and ultimately raises taxes on the ordinary people is exactly what they have in mind, but they rush it through without any public hearings and discussion because they don't want people to realize it.

2) The GOP tax "reform" bill is intended to create a deficit that will justify "huge automatic cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid", to be followed by a "push for a constitutional convention, at which the No. 1 agenda item will be a balanced budget amendment" with the goal ultimately of privatizing Social Security.

MacLean calls this Ayn Rand-brand of hateful thinking followed by GOP House majority leader Paul Ryan "economic eugenics".  Since the GOP right-wing libertarians believe that only people who are successful have any merit, they are comfortable "inflict[ing] harm on other people.  At its most basic, this libertarian moral system says that it would be better for people to die than to get health care financed by government from taxes paid by others."

3)The GOP emphasis on voter fraud (and consequent efforts across the country to make it harder for people to register to vote or to actually vote) allows the oligarch-led anti-democratic movement to disregard the will of the people because they have "gamed the system to maintain power."

The majority of Americans opposed the tax bill that almost every single Republican representative and senator voted for (no Democrat voted in either house of Congress to support the GOP tax scam).  But the GOP legislators think they can ignore what the voters want, because they have held discussions behind closed doors, and are "using the power of national government to prevent voters in more progressive lcoalities and states from being able to choose more progressive policies" by enacting a bill that penalizes voters living in high-tax, progressive states that actually already send more money to low-tax, economically suffering "red" states.

MacLean notes that George Mason University's Mercatus Center, funded by Charles Koch, has been leveraging universities for their political project of undoing progressiivism for decades.  They think people will be "absorbed with Facebook and binge-watching Netflix" so will disregard the way that the GOP and their oligarchic allies are using the national government to return to the late 19th century when oligarchs with property had all the power.  That's what is the "stealth nature of this tax bill."  Returning to a world where "only the wealthy were doing well and everybody else was screwed", a world preferred by James Buchanana, who "devised the playbook that the Koch network is using."

This tax legislation is, indeed, class warfare.  It represents a huge blow in favor of wealthy corporatists though creation of a gaping $1.5 trillion deficit hole that will be used by the GOP to decimate New Deal and Great Society programs on which most ordinary Americans depend --Medicaid to pay for nursing homes in the last years of life, Medicare to help afford needed medical care, Social Security to make up for the gap between the meager savings in retirement plans and the increasing costs of living after retirement.  These wealthy people in Congress just don't give a damn for ordinary working Americans, whether black or white, rural or urban, "conservative" or "liberal".  All they care about is making sure that people with property have even more property.  It has nothing to do with creating or promoting a sustainable economy that will lift ordinary workers stagnated wages.  It has everything to do with appeasing the top one percent.

Related articles

Bernie Sanders at The Monitor Breakfast

Millions of Kids Are About to Lose Their Health Insurance Because Congress Won't Do Its Job

The GOP Tax Bill Disses the Working Class

Here's something about the GOP House and the GOP Senate:  they each passed tax bills (supposed to come out in a "conference" agreement sometime today) that diss the United States' working class taxpayers.  White or black, Christian or Jew or other, citizen by birth or naturalized citizen--workers are treated as an inferior "taker" class and owners are treated as a superior "maker" class--the same old GOP class warfare that has been evidenced in Republican-driven tax legislation for decades.  That shows in the provisions that have been discussed quite a bit already, even though there is no official distributional analysis and even though the Treasury Department put out a one-pager claiming to provide an analysis showing huge economic growth would eliminate any deficits (based on both the tax "reform" legislation and promised cost-cutting "reforms" to Medicare and Social Security):

• the  significant reduction in impact of the estate tax,
• the huge reduction in the statutory corporate tax rate of most benefit to officers/shareholders (it was 35%, it will be 21% under the conference agreement, apparently, even though the "effective" corporate tax rate ranged from negative to around 24-25%--essentially more favorable than many of our fellow advanced economies' corporate tax rates);
• the territoriality of the corporate tax (generally, zero tax on foreign earnings of U.S. companies);
• immediate expensing of company investments (a five year provision that allows companies huge tax benefits for those five years);
• the elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT), at a cost of about $250 billion in revenues.
• the reduction in the top rate for wealthy individuals (from 39.6% to 37%),
• the substantial reduction in the  State and Local Tax Deduction for workers (thus changing entirely the economics of paying for a house already purchased, while allowing sole proprietors, partnerships and other "owners" of equity in businesses the ability to deduct such State and Local Taxes in full);
• a larger standard deduction but the elimination of personal exemptions;
• a larger child tax credit that only becomes refundable over time (limiting how much it helps the poor) but is available to wealthy households (starting to phase out at half-a-million of income!);
• the only slight reduction in the ability of wealthy individuals to take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction (reducing the debt limit to $750,000 instead of $1,100,000)
• the elimination of the corporate AMT (which cuts taxes for wealthy shareholders/owners/managers) but the retention of the individual AMT (which primarily affects the upper middle class and not the wealthiest taxpayers under the current rate bracket system);
• the elimination of the Affordable Care Act mandate and penalty (which reduces the amount of Medicaid and insurance subsidy funds for poor and middle-income taxpayers, as well as guaranteeing the deconstruction of the health care system for 13 million or more Americans by 2027 and  increasing insurance premiums for upper-middle-class taxpayers); and
• the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to rape by fossil fuel oligarchies (a piddling amount of revenue, but sufficient to buy off the principle-less Sen. Lisa Murkowski from Alaska );
• making the corporate tax changes permanent (and effective without any transition period) while making the individual tax cuts other than benefits for the wealthy like the estate tax changes temporary.
• (just to name a few).

When the health care mandate removal is combined with the other provisions,  "On net, the poor would actually lose out in all years once this effect is taken into account."  Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017).  The following Tax Policy Center graph from the Vox article (using the Urban-Brookings Microsimulation Model) shows that by 2027 the top 0.1% end up doing much better (average tax cut for the top 0.1 percent is $221,550 a year).  The bottom 20% do worse while the middle--the second and third quintiles--have a very insignificant plus (average tax cut of the third quintile is $490).   Within the third or middle quintile, more than 62% of taxpayers that earn between $54,700 and $93,200 would see their taxes go up, "[b]ut only about 0.1% of the very richest one-thousandth of Americans would see a tax hike."  Id.  Early gains--though small, intended perhaps to benefit the GOP in earlier votes--don't last because the individual cuts aren't permanent.  A change to chained CPI for indexing brackets amounts to a tax increase on individuals, while the permanent corporate tax cuts mean rich and very rich do well while middle and upper-middle lose out. 

 

Maybe the most damnable characteristic of these House and Senate provisions, other than the sheer favoritism for the already wealthy, is the favorable treatment in determining the rate at which income is taxed for "owners" compared to the disfavored treatment for taxation of workers' wages.  As the Tax Policy Center notes, the Senate version of the tax bill "would reduce taxes on business owners, on average, about three times as much as it would reduce taxes on those whose primary source of income is wages or salaries."  Paul Krugman, Republicans Despise the Working Class, NY Times (Dec. 15, 2017), at A27.  And this dissing of the working class goes along with treating partners in real-estate partnerships (like the Trump family and many other real estate developers) with kid gloves:  "a partner in a real estate development firm might get a far bigger tax cut than a surgeon employed by a hospital, even though their income is the same." Krugman, Republicans Despise the Working Class, NY Times (Dec. 15, 2017) (quoting Howard Gleckman at the Tax Policy Center). 

The Vox article describes the pass-through provision as part of its "here's who would be better off" section:

Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new deduction reducing their tax burden. The House-Senate compromise bill allows people with pass-through income to deduct a portion of that income from their taxes; the deduction is reportedly for 20 percent of pass-through income, less than the 23 percent under the Senate-passed bill.  Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017).

Note that this is an off-the-top reduction of what would otherwise be personal taxable income taxed at the taxpayer's individual tax rate.  Workers who are paid wages get no such break. And wealthy people will use good lawyering and tax planning to organize their businesses so that their income is counted as pass-through income rather than wages. This is just a continuation of a trend of favoring passive ownership of capital in this country.  See, e.g., the Berkeley Blog, Wealthy investors to win bigly with Republican tax plan ( Nov. 9, 2017).

Imagine a company where two siblings as owners and a third sibling is the principal employee.  They all receive about the same income from the company--for the worker bee, as wages and for the other two, as a profit share.  The worker bee does all the creative thinking and working.  So the two owners pay tax under this provision on 20% less income than the worker bee.  And this is true in an economy in which economists are generally agreed that pass-throughs are currently taxed favorably, taking everything into consideration, and "don't need another break".    Dylan Matthews, The Republican tax bill that could actually become law, explained, Vox.com (Dec. 14, 2017).  This pass-through provision is as clear a snubbed nose to all those who work hard to earn a decent living as one can imagine.  Fact is, the "owners" are often the takers, and the "workers" are the makers.

 

PS. The Vox article suggests that the corporate tax break is justifiable, based on the GOP "economic theory" that claims that a lower corporate tax rate will "spark so much additional investment in the United States that it would bid up wages and leave the middle class better off through its indirect effects."  Id.  This is just another way to state the "supply-side" "trickle-down" theory that has been relied on  for decades by right-wingers but has never been shown to be justified empirically.  In 2004, the GOP made the same claim for its "repatriation tax holiday" for multinational corporations, claiming that the low tax would allow those corporations to invest and expand, leading to job creation.  It didn't.  It led, instead, to share buybacks and more money for the shareholders.  In fact, a large number of repatriating corporations that did share buybacks with the money also laid off thousands of workers.

PSS.  The Vox article also suggests that the limitation of the state and local tax deduction for individual taxpayers (but not for businesses) has a "reasonable case" supporting it.  Sure, the benefit of the state and local tax deduction is regressive, in that higher income taxpayers in larger houses with larger property taxes and larger incomes get more of a deduction.  And yes, it tends to benefit those states with higher state income taxes that are used to develop infrastructure and education.  But that misses several points in response.  First, for people at the upper-middle income bracket, the Alternative Minimum Tax generally limits the availability of the state and local tax deduction.  Second, people who currently own homes and are paying taxes on those homes and living in states with higher taxes likely took the availability of a property tax deduction into account in determining what they could pay for their home: the bill does nothing to provide a reasonable transition for these folks that takes their expectations into account.  Third, when the GOP is trying to counter a Democratic president, it always makes the argument that it makes more sense to support states in allowing them to experiment with different ways of raising revenues and supporting their economics.  That's what the "blue" states have done:  they have recognized that having higher taxes allows development of infrastructure, support for education, funding for research and other priorities, and these expenditures have created a more sustainable economy and better standard of living in those states--exactly what the "state experimentation" is supposed to do.  Yet the GOP provision on state and local taxes is now justified as a way to undo the benefit for "rich" states without doing anything to help the "poor" states.  (In fact, Ryan and McConnell have made it clear that their goal is to harm the poor states by reducing funding for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security on which those states in particular depend.)

 

Related articles

Republicans Raise Doubts About Senate Tax Bill

The Senate just passed a tax bill that would strike a blow to a fundamental part of Obamacare

The Senate passed the massive GOP tax bill in the middle of the night - here's what's in it

New Report Details '13 Terrible Things' About Senate GOP Tax Plan : Conscious Life News

The GOP tax bill is huge for the US oil and gas industry

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski announces support for repealing individual mandate, a potential boost to tax overhaul

US approves new drilling in Arctic - Ships & Ports

Repealing the Individual Mandate Would Hurt the Poor, Help the Rich

The Republican Party's Heartlessness--the Casualty Loss Provision of the purported "tax reform" legislation

The GOP is cruising towards passage of its class warfare tax legislation that continues the long trend of Republican tax policy to redistribute upwards to the very rich.  The legislation, however, is supported by a small minority of the American public (latest polls put support for the tax legislation at less than 30%). See, e.g., Allan Smith, Polls show key Republicans could get whacked by the tax bill, Business Insider.com (Dec. 4, 2017). That's astonishing when you consider that one provision in both the House and Senate bills that is used as a "revenue raiser" to pay for the huge tax subsidies to corporations and wealthy taxpayers will be especially hard hitting to lots of middle class and lower-income people, including many who voted for Trump.

The legislation will gut the "casualty loss" provision that currently allows taxpayers to deduct losses from hurricanes and fires and other accidents and forces of nature, to the extent those losses aren't covered by insurance (after a $100 per loss limitation).  Thus, people who were flooded by Harvey can claim casualty losses on their 2017 tax returns for amounts not covered by insurance.  People who lost their homes in the fires that raged earlier this fall in northern California can claim casualty losses on their 2017 tax returns for amounts not covered by insurance.  But, as Bob Cesca notes for Salon.com, As L.A. Burns, Republicans Vote for a Tax Hike on the Victims (Dec. 8, 2017).  See also Thomson Reuters Tax & Accounting News, 2017 Tax Reform: proposed individual tax changes in the 'Tax Cuts & Jobs Act' (Nov. 3, 2017) and Sally Schreiber et al, Details of Tax Reform Legislation Revealed, Journal of Accountancy (Nov. 2, 2017) (noting that the personal casualty loss is repealed, except, in the House version, for such losses associated with special disaster relief legislation--which requires congressional action for each one); Tony Nitti, Senate Releases Tax Bill: Here's How It Compares to Current Law & the House Plan, Forbes.com (Nov. 10, 2017).

You have to wonder just how the Republican Party and Trump administration became so completely heartless.  And why they think that Americans won't notice that they only care about multimillionaires in the "one percent".

The Tax-Cut Framework Won't Create Jobs and Digs the Inequality Ditch even Deeper

Marcus Ryu, a self-described Silicon Valley entrepreneur who created, with others, a company now worth $5 billion on the New York Stock Exchange, argues in today's Op-Ed section of the New York Times that "Tax Cuts Won't Create Jobs", NY Times (Oct. 9, 2017), at A23 (the title in the digital edition is different from the print title:  Why Corporate Tax Cuts Won't Create Jobs).  He is right.

The tax cuts proposed in the framework set out by the Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress claims to be pursuing economic growth that will benefit ordinary people (Trump's purported base).  These claims are based in part on claims that  U.S. taxpayers (individual, corporate and individual who owns businesses through partnerships) are much more heavily taxed than taxpayers in other advanced countries.  Trump often points to the statutory tax rate for corporations (35%), which is higher than the statutory rate in most other advanced countries. But Trump usually ignores the fact that the vast majority of corporations (including very profitable U.S. multinationals) pay no or much lower taxes, in part because of the many loopholes and deductions that reduce the income that is taxed.  When one considers the nation's GDP and the percentage of GDP paid in taxes, it is quite clear that the U.S. is actually one of the lowest taxed of developed countries, which often have income taxes, corproate income taxes and value-added taxes (which the U.S. does not have), as well as specialty taxes such as financial transaction taxes (which the U.S. does not have).  See, e.g., Business Insider, Is the U.S. the highest taxed country? (Sept. 6, 2017).

"[T]he most comprehensive measure by which to judge Trump's claim, combining corporate and individual taxes paid, is tax burden as a percentage of gross domestic product. It compares how much money in a country is put toward taxes with the economic output of the country.  By this measure, the US has the fourth-lowest tax burden of any OECD country, with only South Korea, Chile, and Mexico ranking lower." [emphasis added]

  Trump has claimed that the proposed cuts in the Trump tax-cut "reform" framework don't benefit the wealthy and don't benefit him but are for the middle class and those with less wealth and income.  The only way that claim would work would be if tax cuts that are clearly targeted at the rich (elimination of the estate tax, elimination of the AMT, drastic cut in the rate at which wealthy partners pay taxes on partnership income shares, drastic cut in the corporate tax rate  when most of the benefit of tax cuts to corporations is used to pay dividends or do share buybacks for the wealthy managers and shareholders) had such a dramatic impact on overall economic growth and on sharing of the benefit of the tax cuts with ordinary workers that it made up for the fact that almost all of the benefit goes directly to the very wealthy and almost all of the negative impact (via additional borrowing and deficits) will result in fewer benefits from the poor.  That positive balance is so unlikely from these tax-cuts-for-the-rich that they appear to be just another of the many Trump lies intended to mislead the American people.  See, e.g., Business Insider, Trump tax reform plan just got its first brutal review showing how it would benefit the rich and almost no one else (Sept.  2017) (noting that "Americans among the top 1% of earners would see the bulk of the plan's benefits, while lower- and middle-class Americans — even most upper-class people — would see few benefits," citing the Tax Policy Center's study of the framework).

Marcus Rye sets out a number of key ideas in his op-ed.

First, "lower tax rates will not motivate more people to start companies."  That is because most people who start a company do so because they have an idea, they want to strike out on their own, or they are ambitious for fame and fortune generally.  Research on the 1986 significant changes to marginal tax rates shows that those changes did not induce higher-income people to work longer hours.

Second, existing companies won't shy away from a promising investment because of the tax rate on potential gain.  Company leaders are motivated to expand if possible, and "lowering the corporate tax rate isn't going to make us create jobs any faster."

Third, tax cuts just "increase our post-tax profitability, which effectively transfers money from the federal government to our shareholders."  The result is a bump in the share prices but no long-term impact on operations or employment plans.  It doesn't even make it easier to raise cash for expansion, since companies are having no trouble getting capital now because of low interest rates. 

Fourth, the tax-cut proposal demonstrates shoddy business reasoning.  It "wish[es] away huge tax-revenue shortfalls with stupendous growth projections."  No well-run business would do that kind of shoddy planning.

Fifth, "by 2027, when [the tax cuts] are fully phased in, four out of every five dollars ... will flow to the top 1 percent, an egregious wealth transfer to those who least need it."

Finally, "tax cuts that deepen our already severe inequality in income and wealth are not in the long-term interests of any citizens, not even the very wealthy. Extreme inequality is corroding our civil society, poisoning our politics, and undermining our effectiveness as a nation.  This is an extremely hard problem to solve, but when you're in a deep ditch, the first thing to do is to stop digging."

Related articles

Inequality is getting so bad even Wall Street is starting to pay attention

RANKED: The 12 most competitive countries in the world

Trump's tax plan just got its first brutal review, showing how it would benefit rich Americans but almost no one else

Senate Budget Resolution Allows $1.5 Trillion in Deficits, Pushes $5.1 Trillion in Spending Cuts

GOP proposes deep tax cuts, provides few details on how to pay for them

Two Wall Street giants criticize Trump tax plan

Trump's Cabinet Picks Are A Sorry Lot

As the Friday inauguration date draws near, most ordinary Americans who read, stay informed, pay attention to history and events, and engage in critical thinking are, understandably, aghast at the poor job Mr. Trump has done so far in putting together a workable Cabinet of high-level appointees with the expertise, experience and values that can lead the country. 

We Americans share many values.  Among them has always been a view that those who are better off should help those who are less well off. We've done that in many ways, beginning with private charity (supported by our tax code) but going much beyond the soup kitchens and church support for a sick parishioner to include a progressive income tax, taxation of the estates of the wealthiest among us upon their deaths (since they were generally almost tax free in life), and the provision of many necessary services through public institutions.  The latter includes things that are important to the everyday life of all of us as well as the opportunities for better lives for those of us not born with a silver (or, in Trump's case, golden) spoon:

• a public right to decent health care, made real by the expectation that hospitals (whether for profit or nonprofit) will care for those who enter their emergency rooms in medical emergencies, even if the patients cannot afford to pay the going price for the service needed, and made more substantive by the passage of the Affordable Care Act which provided coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowed young people to remain on their parent's insurance, and made market exchanges available to provide better to understand choices while providing a federal subsidy for those who otherwise couldn't afford insurance;
• public education from kindergarten through college, supported by federal and state funding, with reasonable rules that protect our children, such as not allowing private carrying of guns within protective zones around schools, and --in many states--rules that ensure that public support reaches poor districts as well as wealthy ones;
• protection of the environment, from national monuments and parks to restrictions on dangerous fracking and oil drilling in sensitive areas (consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), from ensuring that communities have clean water to drink through regulation of corporate waste to ensuring that children have safe homes through regulation of lead paint, from protecting the nation's waterways so that individual owners and polluters cannot hoard or harm nationally important resources to protecting creatures large and small that represent the genetic diversity of this Earth
• regulation of commercial enterprises, to ensure that they do not exploit their workers, through fair labor laws and hiring laws and workplace rules that prevent employers from being able to force individuals to work in dangerous conditions or without appropriate rest and meal breaks
• regulation of financial enterprises, to ensure that those sophisticated 'quants' don't take advantage of less sophisticated customers, to prevent discriminatory practices that disadvantage people of color, to ensure open and fair reporting of financial positions
• regulation of the foods and drugs that enter our marketplace, to protect Americans, our children and our pets from the kind of pollution of food products that occurred when China's unregulated marketplace allowed melamine (plastic) to be substituted for protein in pet foods that were exported abroad or the indiscriminate use of toxic pesticides without informing consumers so that we can make good decisions about products that we buy; and on and on

Trump's appointees for many of the important Cabinet positions seem to be primarily wealthy crony capitalists with radical ideologies that are in direct conflict with the agency missions. Consider just the following three:

• Betsy DeVos--Trump's choice as education secretary-- is a billionaire heiress (ie., another one born with a silver spoon in her mouth) who has no experience in running major programs (the student loan portion of the Education portfolio is a trillion-dollar budget with enormous complexity), shows little understanding of the broad issues in education, has never supported public schools, and has wrecked Michigan's education system by funding a multimillion-dollar initiative pushing support of for-profit charter schools that siphon off public dollars  for the private enrichment of corporate managers, provide public dollars for religious education, and remain totally unaccountable to the taxpaying public while performing abysmally in their job of educating students.  Not surprisingly, at her confirmation hearing she refused to support "equal" accountability for private and public schools. She supports the completely discredited "conversion therapy"  for gays and will likely work to reverse the protections won for LGBTQ students based on her personal religious beliefs.  DeVos has never taught, has never served on a school board, and has never even sent her own children to public schools or participated in a PTA meeting.  She showed at her confirmation hearing that she has little or no understanding of educational issues of importance, such as the Federal laws requiring appropriate education for students with disabilities or nondiscriminatory opportunities for female and LGBTQ students. Her answer on whether guns should be allowed on school grounds was--(a paraphrase) Yes, because who knows, it might be necessary to protect children by shooting at a grizzly bear, and acknowledged that she would support Trump's proposal to ban gun-free school zones.  This, in a world where too many toddlers and high-school students have been mown down by guns brought in by students bent on death.  Betsy DeVos is anti-public education, anti-teacher, and anti-union--one of those who blame every problem of our underfunded schools on the teachers rather than on the ideological bureaucrats that have siphoned money away from public schools for vanity projects.  In the confirmation hearing, she refused to say that she would not work to privatize schools,  she thought it would be "premature" to say she would support the rules requiring investigation of college sexual assaults, and she didn't even understand a question from Al Franken dealing with an important educational issue regarding assessment.  Her values, in short, are not the values of a majority of ordinary Americans whose children attend public schools, and who want their children's teachers to be decently paid and respected.  (She hasn't completed her ethics disclosure yet, but she did omit a $125,000 anit-union political donation from her Senate disclosure form.  Not a good indicator of her respect for integrity.)   See, e.g., Betsy DeVos, Trump's education pick, lauded as bold reformed, called unfit for job, Washington Post (Jan 17, 2017); Amy Wang, All the vital questions Trump's pick for education secretary couldn't answer at her confirmation hearing, Quartz (Jan. 18, 2017); Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent than from the Bottom 60. Find Yours, The Upshot, New York Times (Jan. 18, 2017) (providing a clear picture of the way privatization of education at the college level has favored the elite).

 

• Scott Pruitt--Trump's choice for the EPA--is an Oklahoma oil and gas yesman who has fought for years to undermine the regulatory power of the EPA--suing the EPA 14 times alongside the oil companies during his Attorney General stint-- so that the oil and gas industry can pollute at will without fearing the power of the federal government to reign them in.  Fracking in Oklahoma has been clearly connected to a sharp increase in the number of earthquakes near fracking wells, but Scott Pruitt would rather expend state dollars on suing the EPA to try to eliminate regulations meant to protect people, communities, and the environment.  Pruitt is a climate change denier who accepts that human activity affects climate but denies the scientific consensus about the pace of warming, suggesting at his confirmation that the discussion of climate change was too "personalized" and not "precise" enough  to merit vigorous action; he has financial ties to oil and gas companies and so, unsurprisingly, he wants to use his role as EPA head to prevent the EPA from fighting pollution that endangers every American's health as well as the planet we and other species live on.  As pointed out in the confirmation hearing, one of the letters Pruitt sent as A.G. was drafted for him by Devon Energy:  he was serving an oil company, not the public, but he claimed such actions were appropriate. Interestingly, Pruitt claims to be in support of state's rights--except when the state's rights run counter to the interests of oil companies.  So he advocates state rights approach to environmental regulation, but at the same time threatens to undo California's ability to set its own clean-air standards!  Quite hypocritical and demonstrative of his obvious kowtowing to the oil industry.      This obsequiousness to polluting industry is NOT an American value.  It is the way crony capitalists work together to make the rules work in their favor and the public be damned.  The fact that Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe--a person who is notorious;y anti-environmental protection,  a climate change denier, and pro Big Business no matter the cost to the environment--support Pruitt assures the American people that Pruitt does not care at all about the potential harms to the environment from  removing our current protective regulations and allowing business to do to the American natural resources the same thing corrupt industry has done to China's air, water, and land.   See, e.g., Trump's EPA pick casts doubt on California's longtime power to set its own clean-air standards, Los Angeles Times (Jan. 18, 2017) (Pruitt suggests he may not continue the federal waiver that has permitted the state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by about a third in 8 years); Scott Pruitt, Testifying to Lead E.P.A., Criticizes Environmental Rules, New York Times (Jan. 18, 2017) (noting Pruitt's hearing testimony criticizing federal rules protecting air and water and addressing climate change); Earth sets a temperature record for the third straight year, New York Times (Jan. 18, 2017) (take a look at the "How 2016 Became Earth's Hottest Year on Record" graphic showing the rapidly increasing temperatures--it is definitely starting to look much like the "hockey-stick graph" that Republicans] climate-change deniers mocked in Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" documentary, and then type in your city's name in the "How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2016?" graphic to see just how cities are experiencing climate change).

 

• Andy Puzder--Trump's choice for Labor--is a constant friend of Big Business  and an ideological critic of almost any worker protection, from much-needed minimum wage increases to $15 an hour to a national program that provides insurance for minimum wage earners (the Affordable Care Act) to any other business regulations that, in his view, impede Big Business's ability to make big profits for its owners.  Thus, he is directly opposed to the mission of the department he would lead..  As the fast-food executive head of Restaurant Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Carl's Jr., he has demonstrated his view that big companies should be able to use workers however they want to make money for the managers and wealthy shareholders, with little regard for ordinary workers' wellbeing.  For instance, the Carl's chain is known for the kind of scheduling that requires workers to show for a 4 hour shift that might result in the worker being sent home after 1 hour because there is lower demand.  Consider what that means for ordinary Americans working at these low-salaried jobs.  They may have to arrange a babysitter or some other child care every time they go into work.  They may have to travel with inconvenient and expensive public transportation systems, or buy gas for a lengthy car trip that ends up not even earning enough to pay for the round trip and other expenses because of the short day.   Pudzer even claims that workers who aren't paid overtime "gain in stature and sense of accomplishment" even though they are often paid so little that they qualify for food stamps and other public benefits.  See, e.g.,  Trump's Labor Secretary Nominee No Friend to Workers,  Advocate (Dec. 8, 2016)   Further, Puzder's company itself has scoffed at labor laws, running afoul of requirements.  Id. (noting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act) . This is NOT American values.  Of course, Pudzer has been a donor and adviser to Trump, like many another of Trump's other billionaire crony appointees.

These three appointees illustrate that Donald Trump has no interest in "draining the swamp" of crony capitalism that has at times seemed to be much too important in DC.  He is actively feeding the swamp monster, with selection of billionaire crony capitalists who want to remake the government to smooth the way for Big Business to do whatever it wants, without protective regulations for workers, the environment, or consumer protection.  This is the 4-decade-long Republican attack on ordinary Americans taken to the extreme--deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy (with hidden tax increases for everybody else), militarization for the military-industrial complex, and privatization of services like education and health care that the government does best because the profit motive ensures corruption and high costs.

I have espoused a view in this blog of what I call "democratic egalitarianism".  It is a philosophy that government should function in a democracy to help ensure that each citizen can participate in opportunities and that the whole protects the most vulnerable amongst us.  I believe that every American w wants our society to move towards a sustainable economy with decent livelihoods for all, good health care for everyone, education that provides opportunities and knowledge that bridges the gap between those born with wealth and the majority of us who are not.  And I am convinced that every American who cares about these things should write or call their Senators and tell them not to approve these unfit candidates for the office they have been nominated for.  Certainly, no candidate should be approved without a clear slate from the ethics office.   Trump himself owes it to the American people to divest himself of his businesses.  Putting them in the charge of his children and claiming that he will remain sufficiently unconnected with them is absurdly insufficient.  But even more, no candidate should be approved to head an agency about which the candidate knows nothing, and for which the candidate's only vision is destruction of the protections the government provides for the American people from the 'stateless' corporatism that allows Big Business to run amok in its search for rent profits above all else, no matter the long term harm done to the American people..

Related articles

The Three Big Reasons Republicans Can't Replace Obamacare

Bernie Sanders at The Monitor Breakfast

Taxes, Government, and the Good Life, Part 2

In yesterday's post, Taxes, Government, and the Good Life, I noted the "long-term position of the GOP" in favor of downsizing government, which can be seen, at least in part, as a way to justify the GOP obsession with cutting taxes on the wealthy and on corporations (mostly owned by the wealthy).  Worth exploring in that context is Eduardo Porter's article entitled "The Case for More Government and Higher Taxes," NY Times (Aug. 2, 2016).

Porter starts by noting the radical shift in the way Americans think about government.  "Americans once appreciated the government that serves them. That’s long gone."  He draws on research by the Pew Research Center showing that 4 of every 5 (or more) voters have said in the last 6 years that government makes them feel frustrated or angry. 

That anger with government has become extraordinarily visible in this election season as one of the candidates for president has seemingly fed on the distrust and hate of a government whose leader's face is different from the majority white population.  Most of us have seen this anger on the screen during the GOP convention, as Trump supporters--mostly white (only 18 out of almost 2500 delegates were black)--expressed their frustration with the societal changes that they see as leaving them behind and creating a world that they don't like.  On the right, that is, the frustration with government seems to morph easily into vitriol, as Trump supporters openly condemned blacks and used violent expressions to talk about the first female presidential nominee of a major party, Hillary Clinton.  (See, e.g., the video below "Unfiltered Voices from Donald Trump's Crowds"--warning: there is offensive speech here.)

 

Americans once understood that government allows people--through taxes, through voting, through volunteering--to create public institutions that could never exist if each one of us had to do it alone.  Through government, we citizens as taxpayers can accomplish projects much  larger than ourselves.

But the shift that Porter mentions has  occurred over the last few decades, due, in large part, to the funded effort by various "think tanks" and high-powered, wealthy individuals in support of a larger goal of maintaining very low regulation on Big Oil, Big Pharm and other Big Business and ensuring very low taxation on rich individuals and the corporations they own and manage.  The constant repetition of mantras that denigrate government persuade Americans that, as Reagan said while serving as the most powerful government leader in the world, "Government is the problem" or, as Rush Limbaugh said, it should be downsized until it can be drowned in a bathtub (paraphrasing).  We constantly hear from the Fox News bloviators that the growth of government stifles the economy, that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government at doing any job, that public employees should be fired--or at least not allowed to form unions that give them strength in negotiations, etc.  Most of these statements appear without support--those on the right simply presume them to be true and are not very willing, in my experience, to delve into the actual facts to see if they support the presumption.  And the push for deregulation and tax cuts for the benefit of the rich continues apace.

As we approach this November election, though, we should ask ourselves what evidence there is to support that mantra.  Is it just a way to 'brainwash' voters into voting against interest?  Is it just a way to ensure that the elite 1% continue to be able to get Congress to enact laws that favor them?   Is it just a way to convince Americans that regulation is bad because the 1% doesn't want their ever increasing profits to be reduced one whit by fair wages sharing productivity with workers, or regulation that would protect the natural beauty of this great country while providing for a more sustainable economy?

Porter suggests a new book as a worthwhile reference on the topic:  How Big Should Our Government Be?, by Jon Bakija, Lane Kenworthy, Peter Lindert, and Jeff Madrick.  The authors, he notes, make clear the value of government and suggest that there are four important  tasks for government facing us now.

“A national instinct that small government is always better than large government is grounded not in facts but rather in ideology and politics,” they write. The evidence throughout the history of modern capitalism “shows that more government can lead to greater security, enhanced opportunity and a fairer sharing of national wealth.”

"The scholars laid out four important tasks: improving the economy’s productivity, bolstering workers’ economic security, investing in education to close the opportunity deficit of low-income families, and ensuring that Middle America reaps a larger share of the spoils of growth."

The article includes a good graphic, available here, showing the importance of government to quality of life.  Countries that have increased tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have achieved  better GDP growth than the United States, which has enacted numerous tax cuts and kept government extraordinarily small (and also less innovative). As the blurb for the graphic says,

"Despite arguments that Big Government hinders economic activity, many countries where government has grown the most have also experienced stronger economic growth. Governments have grown across most industrialized nations — raising more taxes over time to offer more public services. In the United States, by contrast, the government remains virtually as small as it was 50 years ago."

Readers will want to look at the graphs accompanying the Porter article, available here, showing GDP growth versus tax revenue as a share of GDP from 1960 to 2013, and the change in tax revenue as a share of GDP from 1965 to 2014 for most OECD countries.   (I was unable to reproduce them here, though the black point in the left graph below is the United States, and the thick black line in the right graph below is the United States.)  These figures clearly show that the economic growth that the right claims to want to produce is in fact highly correlated with more government spending and higher taxes as a percent of GDP.  Of course we want the taxes to be reasonable and the spending to be the right kind--public infrastructure and human capital, basic research that supports biomedical, technical and other innovations, etc.  But blanket statements that smaller government is always better, that private enterprise always does things better than government, or that ordinary Americans are better served by "getting rid of" regulations developed to protect people and our environment--those kinds of ideological dogmas are simply ungrounded in fact.

 

How should underpayment of employees affect tax policy?

In a pre-Labor Day blogposting, Robert Reich wrote about the brute capitalism results for many employees today--a full-time job that doesn't play a living wage.  Walmart was his example--"America's biggest employer" where a "typical employee is still paid less than $9 an hour."  See Reich, Wal-Mart's typical employee is paid less than $9 an hour, Salon.com (Aug. 30, 2013) (posted originally on Reich's blog).

Wal-Mart has used its market clout to shut out labor unions and bring the retailing sector down to its self-defined low.  I've written before about my own personal experiences in talking to Wal-Mart employees about unions and encountering abject fear that the employee would lose his or her job if any Wal-Mart supervisor were to be aware of the discussion, being told that Wal-Mart supervisors routinely enter employee rest areas and tear down any materials discussing advantages of unionization, and seeing the evidence of anti-Union and pro-owner sentiment in the way huge profits are channeled to managers/owners while workers are paid a mere pittance of what would be a decent wage.  Wal-Mart documents revealed several years ago that it was intentionally refusing to provide health coverage becuase it was cheaper for the "company" (managers and owners) to push employees off to Medicaid and other government assistance.

That is brute capitalism at work--ensuring that the few at the top receive all the benefits of profit-making and productivity gains, while the average workforce is paid too little to provide a decent living for a single person, much less a family.

So what does this have to do with tax policy, you say?   Reich is making an argument for an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour and greater recognition of workers' rights.  Those are worthy objectives, and I fully support them.  You could add better enforcement of anti-trust laws.  In general, we should be asking ourselves why we allow one retailing giant to become so huge that it encompases distribution networks, warehousing, sales and manufacturing contracts around the globe that ensure that workers in China or Bangladesh manufacturing clothing for the company are making it on very little money and that workers in the US who sell that same clothing (or otherwise work in stores) are similarly poorly situated.  

But the question I am raising is the connection between such company policies and tax policy.  I think there is a strong argument that we should consider at least the following principles, coupled with a stronger (more progressive and higher rates) corporate tax to ensure the rules have some bite:

1) our tax rules should discourage companies from ripping off workers to overreward managers and owners.

2) our tax rules should work to ensure that people in the lowest income brackets don't have to carry the burden of paying taxes on their meager incomes

and

3) our tax rules should shift the incidence of tax to those at the top who control their own salaries and away from those at the bottom who have practially no say on what they work for.

We could go part way towards accomplishing the first with a strict limitation on deductible compensation.  That might perhaps deny a deduction to executive pay that is more than 30 times the pay of the average worker as well as impose a cap above which no pay is deductible in computing the company's taxes.

We could make our rules work better to accomplish the second point by extending the personal exemption and standard deduction to ensure that some measure (2X?) the federal poverty amount is entirely exempt from federal income or payroll taxation.

Finally, we could accomplish the third point by creating a more progressive income tax structure that identifies several additional brackets at the high end (distinguishing between those who earn not quite a million and those who earn multi-millions and those who earn billions) and a more progressive estate tax structure that exempts a core amount (smaller than the high exemption recently made permanent) and then imposes a graduated tax on the excess.

If we don't begin to address the issue of hardworking Americans who cannot get by on a single job by amending our policies (including tax) to make the existence of a highly privileged upper class and a highly disadvantaged underclass the most important topic for government to address, I fear this country is in for a rude shock.  Infrastructure expenditures will continue to dwindle especially in poorer areas,  Education will continue to be moved to easily quantifiable but not so likely to be enduringly useful online instruction under the pressure from the "accountability gurus" (who want to evaluate out of existence public teacher unions, without knowing what makes a good educator) and the likes of the (also non-educator) Bill Gates and his ilk.  The wealthy will continue to live in more and more secluded and luxurious gated communities separate from the hoi-poloi of the middle and lower classes.  Generally speaking, brute capitalism and bogus "free market" theories of economics and tax will continue to leave more and more of our citizens underprivileged, hungry, lacking in education, and turning to whatever avenue for changing their lives remains open (including crime).

 

Megan McArdle (one of those Bloomberg economists who tends to write in support of right-wing economic ideas) recently argued that Wal-Mart can't pay the good wages that Trader Joe's or Costco pays because (i) it is simply too big, with too much merchandies, to make the kinds of profit it expects doing so, and (ii) it has a low-income customer base who can't afford to buy anything except the cheap stuff it provides [produced in unsafe conditions by a non-unionized labor force].  See Megan McCardle, Why Wal-Mart Will Never Pay like Costco, Bloomberg.com (Aug. 27, 2013).  

Megan thus supports my argument that we should never allow one retailer to grow to such huge consolidated form (antitrust needs to be reinvigorated to battle giants like WalMart).  But Megan misses Henry Ford's key insight--if you want your workers to buy your good product, you pay your workers well, and their business will further your business.  Wal-Mart has done exactly the opposite--it has driven out stores that paid workers better (and added to localities' environmental problems in spades), in order to drain off huge profits for its owners and top managers while using every technigue in the book to block workers' unions and prevent workers from getting paid decent wages for what they do, forcing workers to only be able to buy from the Wal-Mart type distribution network (Wal-Mart and "dollar store" or other cheap merchandisers who pay their staff very little).  

Whether we think about this in terms of the growing inequality in this country that stifles economic growth for all in the long run, or the class warfare that the right has been engaging in for at least the decades since Reagan was elected President, or the corporatism (derived in large part from the "free market" rhetoric) that has taken over most American institutions, we should recognize that Wal-Mart and other big companies like McDonald's and the other fast-food chains have built a business model that is detrimental to ordinary Americans for the benefit of the few ("the 1%" of the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric).  And we should start considering ways to counter the these harmful developments.  In particular, we should ensure that companies pay their workers a living wage and we should protect those workers at the bottom of the income scale from having to give up any of that wage in payroll or income taxes.