Jared Bernstein: Tax roundup: Lies, lies, and more lies [feedly]

Tax roundup: Lies, lies, and more lies
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/tax-roundup-lies-lies-and-more-lies/

First, here's a rough typology of the lies upon which the sales job for the Republicans' wasteful, regressive tax cut is based.

1. The tax cut won't help the rich. 1a. It won't help Trump.
2. The tax cut will generate enough growth to pay for itself. 2a. Sec'y Mnuchin's now going beyond this, claiming that it will raise more revenue than it loses. (Here's what I think's going on there.)
3. Most of the benefits of the tax cut will go to the middle class.

Lies, lies, lies. And while it's early days, and much could change, My impression is that a lot of people outside of DC Republicans aren't buying them. The media and the Twitterverse is especially lit up with lies #1 and #2. In fact, here's the NYT doing some calculations on lie 1b ("Trump could save more than $1 billion under his new tax plan"; that's mostly due to eliminating the estate tax).

Also, on #1, see Chuck Marr's take on the benefits to the wealthy:

• The top 1 percent of households (those with incomes above $700,000) would get roughly 50 percent of the framework's net tax cuts, or roughly $150,000 a year on average.
• The top 0.1 percent of households (those with incomes above $3.8 million) would get roughly 30 percent of the framework's net tax cuts, or about $800,000 a year, on average.

This analysis also applies to the reduction in the tax rate (from about 40 to 25 percent) for business pass-through income, which the R's are trying to sell as helping small businesses. In fact, 86 percent of pass-throughs are already taxed at 25 percent or less. Marr: "79 percent of the benefit of this tax cut would flow to filers with incomes above $1 million.  The 400 households with the highest incomes would receive an average tax cut of $5.5 million from this provision alone."

Re #3, since most of the cuts go to the top, there's not much left to trickle down to the middle class, but the tax cutters are making a big deal out of how their plan to double the standard deduction (or, to increase the zero tax bracket) will help lower income families. And, no question, some will benefit from that.

But what they don't talk about is their plan to get rid of personal exemptions, which also lower the tax burden for families, especially those whose deductions currently lead them to itemize (and thus forego the current standard deduction) and numerous members. To determine whether middle-class families get a cut or an increase under the new plan, you must see if the higher standard deduction (plus the proposed expansion in the child tax credit, about which details have yet to be released) is greater than the loss of personal exemptions.

Thankfully, Josh Barro carefully, with caveats for what's known and what's not, does the number crunching. His conclusion: "While there are still a lot of details to be filled in, the information we have available suggests the new Republican tax proposal would raise income taxes on many families who make just a bit more than the national average."

Finally, once you've gone through all this muck and taken the requisite shower to clean all that BS out of your pores, here's yours truly on what actual tax reform might look like. Simply put, the goal is to raise the ample revenue we need to meet the challenges we face, while pushing back on market-driven inequalities.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Janus is the latest attack on workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively [feedly]

Janus is the latest attack on workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively
http://www.epi.org/blog/janus-is-the-latest-attack-on-workers-rights-to-organize-and-bargain-collectively/

 -- via my feedly new

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear Janus v. AFSCME, a case that could profoundly affect the ability of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions. The case threatens the right of the majority of workers, through their democratically elected union, to bargain a contract with their public employer that requires every employee covered by the contract to pay their fair share of the costs of negotiating it, administering it, and enforcing it. The Court decided this issue forty years ago in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and it has been the law of the land since.

Janus is nothing more than the latest attack on workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively. The Court considered this issue last term in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which resulted in a 4-4 split decision upholding a lower court decision that permits public employee unions to assess fees on non-members who benefit from collective bargaining and union representation and who unions are required to represent. In any other circumstance, it would be outrageous to demand the benefits of a common enterprise without paying one's fair share. Union representation is no different. Eliminating fair share fees protects people who want to get something for nothing and as a result, starves unions.

It is profoundly undemocratic to elevate the objections of a minority over the democratically determined choices of the majority of workers. This principle is what is at stake in Janus. The decision in this case will determine the future of effective unions, democratic decision making in the workplace, and the preservation of good, middle-class jobs in public employment.

VISIT WEBSITEsfeed

North Korea and Yemen — the Costs of Empire [feedly]

North Korea and Yemen — the Costs of Empire
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/north-korea-and-yemen-the-costs-of-empire

Mark Weisbrot
US News and World Report, September 28, 2017

HuffPost, September 28, 2017

See article on original site

As the war of words between the governments of Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un has spiraled into child-like name calling and escalating military threats, the world shudders at the possible consequences. The Pentagon has reportedly estimated that a North Korean attack with conventional weapons against the South would kill 20,000 people a day; but deaths could reach the millions in the event of a nuclear war.

Meanwhile, in Yemen, the US is already participating militarily in what humanitarian aid groups have labeled crimes against humanity. US military forces are participating in refueling Saudi bombers and also in their targeting, which has killed thousands of civilians. By cutting off food imports, the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war has put more than seven million people at the brink of starvation.

The "Saudis are deliberately trying to create a famine inside Yemen in order to essentially starve the Yemenis to the negotiating table" — and "the United States is participating," said Senator Chris Murphy.

And now, as a result of the destruction, Yemen has the worst cholera outbreak in the world, which has infected more than 500,000 people, with at least 2,000 deaths so far. The UN estimates that a child in Yemen dies every 10 minutes from preventable causes.

When our government threatens whole nations with annihilation, or participates in massive cruelty and collective punishment in far-away places, it is important to at least try to understand why this happens. While these crimes are illegal (even Trump's threats against North Korea are prohibited by the UN charter) and nothing could justify them, our political leaders and policy analysts nonetheless fill the mass media with rationales that often win at least tacit support from many people who should know better.

The idea that North Korea's nuclear capacity is a threat to the US, in particular because Kim might be crazy enough to attack us, was dismissed in a recent New York Times report:

The fear is not that Mr. Kim would launch a pre-emptive attack on the West Coast; that would be suicidal, and if the 33-year-old leader has demonstrated anything in his five years in office, he is all about survival. But if Mr. Kim has the potential ability to strike back, it would shape every decision Mr. Trump and his successors will make about defending America's allies in the region.

In other words, if North Korea could retaliate against a US attack, Washington would have less power in Asia. It seems that when we dig beneath the surface of "national security" arguments for terribly dangerous or violent foreign policies, it is more often power, rather than the security or well-being of Americans, that underlies them. Otherwise, the negotiation of peaceful solutions would be the first priority.

But as recently as June, the Trump administration dismissed an offer from North Korea and China to negotiate a deal in which North Korea would freeze its missile and nuclear testing in return for the US freezing its "big, large-scale military exercises" in the Korean peninsula.

The same imperial priorities that prevent a negotiated solution with North Korea appear to be a major reason for US participation in the war and atrocities in Yemen. In this case it is part of Washington's strategic alliance with the Saudi dictatorship, which has recently been subjected to increasing criticism for its support for terrorist groups, including ISIS.

Fortunately, members of Congress are pushing back against the unconstitutional, unauthorized participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

For nearly three years, the Executive Branch has deployed the US military, at the Saudi dictatorship's request, against an indigenous Yemeni rebel group called the Houthis. The Houthis are unrelated and opposed to Al Qaeda and ISIS — the groups targeted by the US under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is forcing our country's first public debate and vote on these unauthorized hostilities by introducing a "privileged" resolution, which means it goes to the floor of Congress over the objections of leadership, to direct President Trump to withdraw US forces from this famine-threatening Saudi war.

But there needs to be more pressure from below. The tens of millions of Americans who already understand the difference between "national security" and empire need to be more active in getting Congress to restrain the Trump administration.

Bernie Sanders recently noted that "Saudi Arabia is not our ally," and proposed a more "even-handed" approach toward the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He also opposed the foreign policy goal of "benign global hegemony" that he attributed to "some in Washington," and denounced the "organizing framework" of the "Global War on Terror" as a disaster.

This is a good sign, and indicates that the movement that propelled Sanders to win 46 percent of the Democratic presidential vote has the potential of putting forward a more independent foreign policy. The mass support for athletes who are "taking a knee" during the national anthem at sports events is another welcome development that wouldn't have seemed possible just a few years ago. The athletes' protest is against racism and police brutality, but at the same time they — and their tens of millions of supporters — have refused to be intimidated by the false and "paid patriotism" promoted by Trump. This, too, has implications for the feasibility of badly needed debates, and independent thinking on US foreign policy.

Trump has contributed to this mass awakening by personally embodying and spewing out so many of the hateful wrongs that need to be righted. No need to thank him for that — he has made the world a more dangerous place ― but we must seize the moment.

---

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and the president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong About the Global Economy" (2015, Oxford University Press). You can subscribe to his columns here.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Enlighten Radio Podcasts:Podcast: The Moose Turd Cafe: -- Puerto Rico: Homicidal Neglect/ Or Genocidal?

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio Podcasts
Post: Podcast: The Moose Turd Cafe: -- Puerto Rico: Homicidal Neglect/ Or Genocidal?
Link: http://podcasts.enlightenradio.org/2017/09/podcast-moose-turd-cafe-puerto-rico.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Enlighten Radio Podcasts:Podcast: Resistance Radio: Driving nails in the Coffin of Trumpcare

John Case has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: Enlighten Radio Podcasts
Post: Podcast: Resistance Radio: Driving nails in the Coffin of Trumpcare
Link: http://podcasts.enlightenradio.org/2017/09/podcast-resistance-radio-driving-nails.html

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/

Trump Gives Tax Cuts to Rich and Fairy Tales to Everyone Else [feedly]

Trump Gives Tax Cuts to Rich and Fairy Tales to Everyone Else
http://prospect.org/article/trump-gives-tax-cuts-rich-and-fairy-tales-everyone-else

(Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

President Donald Trump talks to reporters as he walks to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2017, in Washington.

trickle-downers_35.jpg

After toiling away for months, the so-called "Big Six" gang of Republican architects have finally unveiled their initial tax proposal, with the feel-good slogan "More Jobs, Fairer Taxes, Bigger Paychecks." Despite all the political spin in recent weeks from Trump and his lieutenants about how the plan won't be a big giveaway for the rich (and might even raise their taxes!) and will be a boon for the middle class, the proof is in the paper.

As expected, the details of the plan show a proposal that was explicitly written for the rich, with provisions aimed at easing the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans. And for the middle class? Nothing but outright lies and murky promises to iron out the details in Congress.

The plan cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent, a move that Republicans claim will unleash a surge of economic growth. In fact, it will only serve to further fill up corporate treasuries and enrich shareholders. Big companies are not capital constrained—if they were, they would not be spending so much cash on stock buybacks that serve no economic purpose other than to pump up the share price.

On top of that, Republicans are calling for a "territorial" tax system that critics say will allow multinational corporations to effectively pay little to no taxes on their offshore profits—compounding the current epidemic of phony booking of profits in tax-haven countries.

Under the guise of helping small businesses, the plan cuts the tax rate for owner-operated pass-through entities from 39.1 percent down to 25 percent. In reality, this gives powerful business operations like the Trump Organization a huge tax break and creates a whole new opportunity for tax evasion. Meanwhile, small owner-operated firms get no relief, since they're already paying lower rates.

In its push to purportedly "simplify" the tax system, Trump's plan folds the current series of seven progressive tax brackets down to three, and in doing so slashes the top rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. It also eliminates the estate tax, which amounts to an average$2 million windfall for the top 0.2 percent and more than $20 million for the wealthiest families in the country. Furthermore, it repeals the alternative minimum tax, which ensures that the wealthy don't get away with paying too little in federal taxes.

Clearly Trump and the Big Six have given a great amount of thought as to how to best secure tax cuts for the rich. So, one might assume that they'd have given at least a little thought as to how best to help the average American—since slashing the corporate and pass-through rates and repealing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax do absolutely nothing for them.

Apparently not. Trump is actually calling to increase the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent. Republicans say, "Don't worry," as they're going to double the standard deduction, which will result in a big tax break for low- and middle-income Americans.

But if you look closely at the fine print, this promise to double the standard deduction is an absolute lie. As Josh Barro explains for Business Insider, the plan actually would only increase the standard deductions available to taxpayers by 15 percent (and even less for seniors).

Barro writes:

Here's how that math works. Let's say you are single with no dependents, and you have a moderate income. Currently, you get to take the standard deduction ($6,350) and one personal exemption ($4,050). If you are 65 or older, you also get to take an additional standard deduction ($1,250). That adds to $10,400, or $11,650 if you're a senior citizen.

The Republican plan would replace all these provisions with a single deduction of $12,000 ($24,000 for married couples.) That's a 15% increase — except for seniors, who get a 3% increase."

Meanwhile, middle-class taxpayers who benefit from the mortgage-interest deduction and state and local tax deductions would likely end up paying more in taxes.

Republicans promise in the plan that there will be "additional tax relief" that will be determined during the congressional committee process. That is to say, the middle class will likely not be getting additional tax relief. As corporate and special-interest lobbyists descend on Capitol Hill as they try to get their lucrative carve-outs from sympathetic committee members, the interests of the middle-class will fall by the wayside.

Don't be fooled by Republican talking points that this simplifies the tax process and will put more money in the pockets of the middle class. And don't buy it when Trump claims that he's not giving a gigantic handout to the wealthy (including himself).

This is straight-up trickle-down taxation. The economic growth and jobs will not come, no matter how low the rates go. It's just tax cuts for the rich and powerful, and fairy tales for everyone else. 

Tax Cuts for the rich. Deregulation for the powerful. Wage suppression for everyone else. These are the tenets of trickle-down economics, the conservatives' age-old strategy for advantaging the interests of the rich and powerful over those of the middle class and poor. The articles in Trickle-Downers are devoted, first, to exposing and refuting these lies, but equally, to reminding Americans that these claims aren't made because they are true. Rather, they are made because they are the most effective way elites have found to bully, confuse and intimidate middle- and working-class voters. Trickle-down claims are not real economics. They are negotiating strategies. Here at the Prospect, we hope to help you win that negotiation.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Summers: Trump could help Puerto Rico with the stroke of a pen. Why hasn’t he? [feedly]

Trump could help Puerto Rico with the stroke of a pen. Why hasn't he?
http://larrysummers.com/2017/09/28/trump-could-help-puerto-rico-with-the-stroke-of-a-pen-why-hasnt-he/

My modestly-informed guess is that Hurricane Maria and Puerto Rico will appear in history textbooks right next to Katrina and New Orleans. Puerto Rico's unique territorial status and institutional constraints make the federal government's response very difficult. And as I shall suggest in a subsequent post, the hurricane has greatly exacerbated Puerto Rico's profound debt burden and development challenges. Yet one has to wonder why we are fanning the flames.

At present, Puerto Rico is desperate for inputs — tools to fix generators so that electricity can be restored, supplies to purify water and avoid cholera, materials to buttress its damaged, crumbling infrastructure, and provisions to feed its population. And as an island, most of what it needs arrives by sea.

One would imagine at a moment like this, every available ship would be put to use to supply Puerto Rico.

Not so. One of our more benighted statutes, the century-old Jones Act, prohibits foreign-owned, foreign-staffed ships from carrying cargo between U.S. ports. Puerto Rico has been among the hardest-hit victims of the law.

In a rational world, the statute would have been repealed decades ago. But really only the smallest bit of common sense is needed to understand the Jones Act should be waived for Puerto Rico over the coming weeks. How can one justify increased prices for fresh water during a once-in-a-generation humanitarian crisis?

Yet, the Trump administration has refused to grant even the short temporary waivers that were instated after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Maybe there is a good explanation. Or maybe President Trump and his team think Puerto Ricans are not as important as U.S. southerners.

Pathetic.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed