The Republicans might get this one right.
The United States system for taxing businesses is a mess.
The current corporate income tax manages the weird trick of both taxing companies at a higher statutory rate than other advanced countries while collecting less money, as a percentage of the overall economy, than most of them. It is infinitely complicated and it gives companies incentives to borrow too much money and move operations to countries with lower tax rates.
The Major Potential Impact of a Corporate Tax Overhaul http://nyti.ms/2jeVcVl
Ryan and his cronies are nothing but corrupt puppets of big business.
House Speaker Paul Ryan presented his economic agenda last week, but it does not deal with the country’s problems with jobs, wages, investment, trade, inequality or other pressing economic issues. Rather, its 57 pages boil down to one idea: Roll back hundreds of federal regulations that protect consumers, investors, employees, borrowers, students and the environment.
The list goes on, with rollbacks to let banks, for-profit colleges, federal contractors, cable companies and other businesses that have hurt and exploited Americans in the past resume their discredited ways.
The Ryan plan is not, in other words, an economic agenda. It is a corporate wish list and a catalog of House Republicans’ fantasies.
Mr. Ryan’s Plan to Revert, Regress and Deregulate http://nyti.ms/1ZYOKkU
Philanthropy is not the right funding solution for our vital public institutions. Sure it’s great that wealthy individuals want to do good, but individual whims are not a reliable source of funding.
Entities profiting from the foundations of our society, it’s institutions, it’s infrastructure, its people, and it’s government have to carry the bulk of the costs of supporting and maintaining them.
Right now that needs to be done through taxes not charity.
In recent years, many of the industry’s elite have pledged financial support to schools, hospitals, police stations and homeless shelters, all while many of the industry’s companies have avoided paying taxes that would fund those same vital public institutions.
If we’re lucky, there may be, but Mr. Thiel isn’t going to like it. Wealth gleaned by way of tax dodges and monopolistic business practices is wealth stolen from the public, even when it is returned in the form of supposed gifts. Philanthropy has the power to do a great deal of good, but so do tax dollars allocated in an equitable democratic system. Perhaps it’s time to adopt a Gospel of Government.
What Can’t Tech Money Buy? http://nyti.ms/1WrhUuw
North Carolina tacked a provision onto their recent anti LGBT bill to limit the minimum wage. How can they possibly think that keeping wages at $7.25 / hr will help their state?
The provision is best understood as a bully’s show of force. State legislators fear the growing demand and support for higher wages among low-wage workers and so they have responded with a gratuitous display of the state’s power and intention to keep pay depressed.
Poverty has many causes — and one of them is poverty-level wages.
one of the objections to gradually raising the federal minimum $15 an hour is that doing so would be too difficult a lift in the South. Politically, the objection is flawed. It argues, that policymakers should follow the laggards, not the leaders
The South Fails Again at Fair Pay http://nyti.ms/22LcCdT
An interesting clarification of just how much welfare US taxpayers give to businesses.
Its also shows just how impossible it is for a free market to meet the needs of either corporations or citizens.
NYTimes: Why We’re All Crony Capitalists, Like It or Not
Tax breaks to encourage economic development in a specific location may benefit the taxpayers, and they may not. This article shows that its very difficult to determine the real benefit to tax subsidies.
One thing often left out of our national conversation is that corporate tax subsidies are CORPORATE WELFARE that directly benefits corporate shareholders. Anyone who owns stock in a company which receives federal, state, or local tax subsidies is themselves the recipient of government entitlements.
People are very quick to judge the entitlements of the poor. Few recognize the entitlements they receive themselves. Even fewer people are willing to question the benefits of the corporate welfare we lavish on fickle companies.
Granting corporate incentives has become standard operating procedure for state and local governments across the country. The Times investigation found that the governments collectively give incentives worth at least $80 billion a year.
Texas cut public education spending by $5.4 billion — a significant decrease considering that it already ranked 11th from the bottom among all states in per-pupil financing, according to recent data from the Census Bureau. Yet highly profitable companies like Dow Chemical and Texas Instruments continue to enjoy hefty discounts on their school tax bills through one of the state’s economic development programs.
But relying on companies does not always turn out well. When Amazon set up a distribution center outside Dallas, it received incentives from the state. Six years later, when the company got into a tax dispute with the state, it shut the warehouse, which employed as many as 2,000 people during its peak season.
NYTimes: Lines Blur as Texas Gives Industries a Bonanza
NYTimes: ‘Too Big to Fail’ Remains Very Real http://nyti.ms/Tw3CY3
The market perception that some financial institutions are “too big to fail” is alive and well. If you want to remove that perception, you need to break up our biggest banks.
creditors still believe that the government stands behind very large bank holding companies and other big financial companies.
In effect, the government is providing a form of insurance that encourages financial institutions to become even bigger — and thus even more likely to be protected by some combination of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other agencies. This is an unfair, nontransparent government subsidy that encourages excessive risk-taking and creates a very large potential downside for the nonfinancial side of our economy.
When the choice is between global calamity on the one hand and unpalatable, unpopular and perhaps even illegal support for big banks on the other hand, these officials expect to go with the bailout.
Prominent figures on Wall Street fought fiercely against the broad contours of financial reform legislation in 2009-10 and fight now on every line of every detailed regulation; their estimated 3,000 to 5,000 lawyers and lobbyists work very hard and earn a great deal of money for a reason.
We need to have a credible commitment to let any financial institution fail — in the sense that it will go out of business, wiping out shareholders and imposing losses on creditors.
But any promise for global megabanks that we would “just let them fail” is completely hollow. Standard or even modified bankruptcy procedures are not a credible threat because of the damage this would cause to other financial institutions and to confidence around the world.
Make banks and other financial institutions small enough and simple enough to fail — this is the point stressed by Messrs. Fisher and Rosenblum.
As Mr. Haldane documents, when measured properly, there are no economies of scale for banks over $100 billion in total assets. As a society, we are not losing anything by imposing a size cap on our largest banks, which currently have assets in excess of $2 trillion. Of course, there are private benefits that are being lost — meaning lower subsidies for large financial firms and the powerful people who run them.