At first, I found this odd --- not about the tax cuts, but that the Wall Street Journal would cite this study.
And then I got to thinking — even tax cuts for the bottom 90% could force cuts to government spending ("starving the beast") because so many people have transitioned into lower-paying jobs; not to mention, the stagnation of wages across the board for the last several decades (even as profits have grown exponentially compared to productivity).
So even taxing the poor less would give the GOP the overall desired effect that they hope for — less tax revenues. Rather than tax the rich more, they want to tax the poor less.
Brilliant! Imagine all those desperate people voting for Republicans to get a tax break in their paychecks — but at the expense of everything else that they will lose, that they once could one day have relied upon (like Social Security, perhaps?)
And the jobs the NBER study says tax breaks will create --- more low-paying part-time jobs?
From another new study, this time from the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education ( April 2015) "Poverty-Level Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $152.8 Billion Each Year in Public Support for Working Families"
They report that wages of the bottom decile of earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than in 1979. Trends since the early 2000s are even more pronounced. Inflation-adjusted wage growth from 2003 to 2013 was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution ... 73 percent of enrollees in America’s major public support programs* are members of working families; and the taxpayers bear a significant portion of the hidden costs of low-wage work in America.
* Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF aka "welfare") and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP aka "food stamps").
Between 2009 and 2011 the federal government spent $127.8 billion per year on these four programs for working families; and the states collectively spent $25 billion per year for a total of $152.8 billion per year. In all, more than 56 percent of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.
Overall, higher wages and employer-provided health care would lower both state and federal public assistance costs, and allow all levels of government to better target how their tax dollars are used.
* But the GOP is against higher wages and employer-provided health care; while at the same time, wants to lower taxes to force cuts in these programs (aka "Starve the Beast"). So instead of just punishing the unemployed, the GOP wants to punish working people too. We're damned if we do (work for low wages) and damned if we don't (work at all).
From Arindrajit Dube (Associate Professor of Economics, UMass Amherst) on this new study:
"If we fund redistribution via taxes and transfers, and it’s paid for by wealthy taxpayers, that’s no worse than funding it via reduced profits going to wealthy investors ... There is also an efficiency argument for paying people via wages rather than public assistance ... Existing research suggests it may be more costly to transfer money from the rich to the poor using tax policies [rather than paying higher wages]. .. These public assistance programs have become de-facto subsidies for low-wage employers. For a program to be a subsidy for an employer, it needs to lower wages ... A balanced portfolio will both include policies that raise wages (like minimum wage policies), as well as robust safety net programs. Minimum wage policies tend to lower the use of public assistance like food stamps ... [But] when work hours are limited, using wages alone to raise incomes is more difficult, and that’s one reason we have safety net programs."
NBER: "Underemployment and hidden unemployment currently account for the bulk of the U.S. employment gap ... Using state-level data, we find strong statistical evidence that each of these forms of labor market slack exerts significant downward pressure on nominal wages." http://www.nber.org/papers/w21094
Yet more indication of failed Fed policies. The United States has one of the lowest labor participation rates in the developed world, but still manages to stay above basket cases like Greece, Spain and Ireland.
The rich are getting positively obese from the Fed's policy, but after six years it has yet to trickle down to ordinary Americans. To make matters worse, "A forecast model from the Federal Reserve of Atlanta on Wednesday suggested the U.S. economy is barely growing in the first quarter following an unexpectedly steep 1.4 percent drop in durable goods orders in February." http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/25/us-usa-economy-atlantafed-idUSKBN0ML2BU20150325
When you run a policy for six years and its primary effect is to redistribute income upwards at the expense of the vast majority of Americans, isn't it finally time for the Fed to step aside, admit its ineffectiveness, and define an effective policy for politicians to implement?
The Democrats' main source of political contributions comes from ordinary individuals and labor unions, while the Republicans' money overwhelming comes from large corporations and super-rich super-PAC donors.
So it should come as no big surprise as to "why" the GOP would prefer NOT to reform election and campaign laws, but instead, kill labor unions, suppress the vote and gerrymander congressional districts — essentially, killing "democracy" and rigging elections to favor the most wealthy.
On April 29, 2010 Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) and Charles Schumer (D-New York) introduced the DISCLOSE Act (also known as H.R. 5175). Later, on September 23, 2010 Congress last voted on this bill to: “Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”
But the cloture motion failed to pass. Here's how they voted when Congress was still dominated by Democrats:
So any savings from gasoline prices was eaten up by other price increases --- and why yearly inflation is now "flat".
What about a senior on Social Security (who doesn't benefit from driving a car) -- they would have seen their cost-of-living go up. So how will Social Security determine their next COLA?
The Senate Finance Committee just allowed President Obama to have "fast track". This is a capitulation to global corporate rule. TPP and TTIP are corporate-rigged trade agreements that give corporations tremendous power. These trade agreements create their own court system, a tribunal system that can’t be reviewed, even by the U.S. Supreme Court. We will become serfs of corporations if these trade agreements become law. A federal "Buy American" law can be considered a "trade barrier" and a corporation can sue American taxpayers. A city or state can pass an environmental law and be sued. So it's a real attack on our Constitution. The judiciary gets totally decapitated — both our legislature and our courts, two thirds of our government, are destroyed by this. It will set up a new form of governance that puts corporations before democracy. Add to that, research by CEPR shows 90% of Americans will see their income go down, while the wealthiest get richer. More jobs will be lost and the trade deficit will continue to expand. The Senate Finance Committee is where the corruption began: just last year alone the members received $237 million in donations. It is the most corrupt congressional committee.
(I would read the entire article if you're interested in tax loopholes.)
From Wall Street on Parade: At approximately 1:07 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, April 11, during the annual Cherry Blossom Festival celebrating springtime in the Nation’s Capitol, a 22-year old man took his own life with a gun on the Capitol grounds with a protest sign taped to his hand. According to the Washington Post, the sign read: “Tax the one percent.”
It sounds like the New York Times is "evolving" ...
"Americans’ desire to soak the rich has diminished even as the rich have more wealth available that could, theoretically, be soaked. It's not just public opinion polls, either. It shows up in the actual policies espoused by candidates for office and enacted by Congress."
"In the 2016 Presidential race, there is, naturally, a lot of interest in how voters view the prospect of the federal government adopting more redistributive policies, such as raising taxes on the wealthy. Intuition and rational-choice theory would suggest that, as the gap between the wealthy and everybody else increases, support for redistribution goes up. But a number of empirical studies published in recent years have cast doubt on this theory, finding that support for redistribution has remained flat, or even that it has fallen."
I think you are right but we might look at volume of sales vs. prices. How bad off is demand these days? A lot of people are now owning cars which get > 30mpg?
the 0.6% decrease in sales at gas stations looks to be in error, as gasoline prices were up 3.9% in March, so we would expect to see a significant revision in that figure when the advance report for April is released a month from now...
per recent posting, from my experience as an SSA Interpreter, no one can submit a bogus Disability claim and get approved. Claimant must be seen by two SSA physicians & have substantial medical reports from their own doctors. And the % of 99er's Long-term Unemployed, haven't dropped out of the work force. They survive on P/T jobs or become self-employed. FOX News can only maintain an audience by portraying villains on any given issue or persons. Truthful reporting doesn't make money for them.
Conglomerates control so much that is under different brand names to make it seem like choice, when there is little choice. Food is an example where just a few own all of the brand names, ConAgra Foods as an example. Yum Foods for fast food as another.
(* This is from a joint investigation of The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times)
Clayton-owned mobile home dealerships with different names and similar banners offer to “BEAT OR MATCH ANY DEAL.” Customers say they thought they were comparison shopping, when they were really visiting multiple Clayton-owned dealerships — all owned by one company.
The U.S. second richest man, Warren Buffett, owns Berkshire Hathaway, which owns Clayton, the mobile home industry’s biggest manufacturer and lender. Clayton is a many-headed hydra with companies operating under at least 18 names. It also sells property insurance on their mobile homes — and repossesses them when borrowers fail to pay.
Berkshire Hathaway extracts value at every stage of the process. Clayton even builds the homes with materials supplied by other Berkshire subsidiaries. And Clayton borrows from Berkshire to make mobile home loans, paying up to an extra percentage point on top of Berkshire’s own borrowing costs.
Clayton customers described a consistent array of deceptive practices that locked them into ruinous deals: loan terms that changed abruptly after they paid deposits or prepared land for their new homes; surprise fees tacked on to loans; and pressure to take on excessive payments based on false promises that they could later refinance. Former dealers said the company encouraged them to steer buyers to finance with Clayton’s own high-interest lenders. Those loans averaged 7 percentage points higher than the typical home loan in 2013.
Buyers told of Clayton collection agents urging them to cut back on food and medical care or seek handouts in order to make house payments. If they don't, their mobile homes are repossessed.
Berkshire Hathaway’s Omaha headquarters sent a statement on behalf of Clayton Homes to the Omaha World-Herald (which is also owned by Berkshire Hathaway) to dispute the allegations.
(* Read more in the links below about Warren Buffett's sleazy company to see why we need more government regulation, not less, as the Republicans always want.)
But a "populist Democrat" would. Legislation to increase Social Security benefits and boosting payroll taxes to cover the cost, now has 58 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, Elizabeth Warren won 42 Democratic votes (with just two Democrats voting no) for a nonbinding resolution calling for a “sustainable expansion of benefits.” A spokesman declined to comment on Hillary Clinton’s current position on this issue. (Silence speaks a million words.) Hillary is not known as a "progressive" Democrat (like FDR or Elizabeth Warren), but as a "New" pro-corporate "centrist" Democrat. In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in 2013, the "centrist" Democratic think tank "Third Way" called plans to increase benefits “reckless” and “irresponsible”. (So now we know what Hillary might privately think.) http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-rethink-social-security-strategy-1...
A solution for the social security dilemma: "There are basically three options to address the problem: increase taxes; reduce benefits; or obtain higher rates of return by privatizing the system ... Some argue for gradually increasing the existing tax rate on both the employee and employer by two percent over a period of twenty years and reducing the annual cost of living (COLA) on the basis that senior spending needs are less than folks in the current workforce. Others suggest increasing the retirement age to 70 and reducing the monthly payments. Another option is to privatize the system by moving from the current 'defined benefit' model to a system where new beneficiaries and those over, for example, age 50 are moved to a system of private accounts ... However, I suggest a more simple approach -- eliminate the taxable maximum ("TAXMAX"). Specifically, instead of taxing only the first $118,500 (plus annual increases based on COLA), individuals would pay on full salary. Thus an individual earning, for example, $750,000 would pay the rate on the full salary rather than just to $118,500. There would be no increase on others." http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/04/a_solution_for_the_social_se...
Last week, media reports exposed the fact that thousands “anti-net neutrality” emails sent to lawmakers came from a shadowy Koch-funded group that’s now being accused of “identity theft” for sending emails from people who had never signed up to oppose net neutrality. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/net-neutrality-email-american-comm...
This morning, the New York times revealed that Comcast has been calling in favors from the many politicians, think tanks, and organizations that they “generously” donate to. Basically they’re bribing politicians and groups to send letters to Congress and the FCC in favor of Comcast’s takeover of Time Warner Cable. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/comcast-recruits-its-be...
Cities and towns around the country are developing municipal broadband networks that are both faster and less expensive than the services offered by big cable and Internet companies. But local governments in 19 states don’t have that option due to anti-consumer state laws that ban or restrict municipal broadband. These state laws are a cynical attempt to preserve the profits of big cable companies.
Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in ATM cash withdrawals under a new law sent last week to Republican Sam Brownback's desk by the state legislature. The Kansas TANF program offers a family of three as much as $429 per month in cash benefits distributed on government-issued debit cards.
Liz Schott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "This provision makes it nearly impossible for a recipient who does not have a checking account to pay rent. Moreover, it actually takes money from the pockets of poor families since they will need to pay 85 cents for each additional withdrawal after the first one in a month, and often more with ATM transaction fees."
Changes by the Brownback administration have already reduced TANF enrollment significantly. The number of Kansans receiving benefits has declined from 38,000 in 2011 to 15,000 last year. (This is literally starving the beasts).
Thank you for the critique. I am familiar with the neoclassical interest rate adjustment argument (which I also reject). But I also reject Keynes more fundamental argument of any kind of link between S & I. I realize Keynes was writing when the world was on a gold standard, so a comparison today may or may not be fair, but if I'm my memory does not fail me, credit was extended far beyond savings in the form of gold. I think the implications are easier to see in a modern economy. Say no one saves at all. Modern credit can still be created. Several new books on banking in modern England argue this point. Thus in my view there is no fundamental link between investment and saving. As an engineer, I see investment as a function of technology required to execute the lowest cost product and consumer demand (savings determined by consumer, not investment) for a given product. In other words, if 10% vs 25% of GDP is required given a state of technology, in both cases full employment will be achieved if consumer spend their income. Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point?
"There's no reason at all why estates shouldn't be taxed 100%. The excess wealth is only hoarded for the benefit of privileged generations 100 years into the future for a handful of very rich families (like the Waltons). It does very little good for anybody else." If one is going to indeed tax all estates at 100%, I suspect you need to be at least very careful about how you go about getting there or you will trigger a bottoming-out of assets from the need to sell-off the estate to pay the taxes. I suppose if one's goal is to peanut butter wealth that would be one way to go about doing it though I'm not sure it would lift the lower end as much as it drops the top.
In the specific case of farms, prepare for whatever is left of the family farm to go away entirely.
The Wall Street Journal cites a NBER study showing tax breaks for the bottom 90% spurs job growth, and tax cuts for the top 10% has little effect.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/20/tax-cuts-boost-jobs-just-not-w...
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21035
At first, I found this odd --- not about the tax cuts, but that the Wall Street Journal would cite this study.
And then I got to thinking — even tax cuts for the bottom 90% could force cuts to government spending ("starving the beast") because so many people have transitioned into lower-paying jobs; not to mention, the stagnation of wages across the board for the last several decades (even as profits have grown exponentially compared to productivity).
So even taxing the poor less would give the GOP the overall desired effect that they hope for — less tax revenues. Rather than tax the rich more, they want to tax the poor less.
Brilliant! Imagine all those desperate people voting for Republicans to get a tax break in their paychecks — but at the expense of everything else that they will lose, that they once could one day have relied upon (like Social Security, perhaps?)
And the jobs the NBER study says tax breaks will create --- more low-paying part-time jobs?
From another new study, this time from the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education ( April 2015) "Poverty-Level Wages Cost U.S. Taxpayers $152.8 Billion Each Year in Public Support for Working Families"
They report that wages of the bottom decile of earners were 5 percent lower in 2013 than in 1979. Trends since the early 2000s are even more pronounced. Inflation-adjusted wage growth from 2003 to 2013 was either flat or negative for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution ... 73 percent of enrollees in America’s major public support programs* are members of working families; and the taxpayers bear a significant portion of the hidden costs of low-wage work in America.
* Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF aka "welfare") and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP aka "food stamps").
Between 2009 and 2011 the federal government spent $127.8 billion per year on these four programs for working families; and the states collectively spent $25 billion per year for a total of $152.8 billion per year. In all, more than 56 percent of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.
Overall, higher wages and employer-provided health care would lower both state and federal public assistance costs, and allow all levels of government to better target how their tax dollars are used.
* But the GOP is against higher wages and employer-provided health care; while at the same time, wants to lower taxes to force cuts in these programs (aka "Starve the Beast"). So instead of just punishing the unemployed, the GOP wants to punish working people too. We're damned if we do (work for low wages) and damned if we don't (work at all).
From Arindrajit Dube (Associate Professor of Economics, UMass Amherst) on this new study:
NBER: "Underemployment and hidden unemployment currently account for the bulk of the U.S. employment gap ... Using state-level data, we find strong statistical evidence that each of these forms of labor market slack exerts significant downward pressure on nominal wages."
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21094
Here's the open link to the 25-page wonkish study (by David G. Blanchflower and Andrew T. Levin -- March 24, 2015)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/Blanchflower-Levin%20labor%20slack%2024mar2015.pdf
Comment from Mark Thoma's blog:
The Democrats' main source of political contributions comes from ordinary individuals and labor unions, while the Republicans' money overwhelming comes from large corporations and super-rich super-PAC donors.
So it should come as no big surprise as to "why" the GOP would prefer NOT to reform election and campaign laws, but instead, kill labor unions, suppress the vote and gerrymander congressional districts — essentially, killing "democracy" and rigging elections to favor the most wealthy.
On April 29, 2010 Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) and Charles Schumer (D-New York) introduced the DISCLOSE Act (also known as H.R. 5175). Later, on September 23, 2010 Congress last voted on this bill to: “Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, to prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections, and for other purposes.”
But the cloture motion failed to pass. Here's how they voted when Congress was still dominated by Democrats:
59 yeas (all Democrats)
39 nays (all Republicans)
2 Republicans didn't vote
(* I'm still not sure why it failed, because doesn't 59 votes pass the threshold for a three-fifths requiremnt?)
So any savings from gasoline prices was eaten up by other price increases --- and why yearly inflation is now "flat".
What about a senior on Social Security (who doesn't benefit from driving a car) -- they would have seen their cost-of-living go up. So how will Social Security determine their next COLA?
The Senate Finance Committee just allowed President Obama to have "fast track". This is a capitulation to global corporate rule. TPP and TTIP are corporate-rigged trade agreements that give corporations tremendous power. These trade agreements create their own court system, a tribunal system that can’t be reviewed, even by the U.S. Supreme Court. We will become serfs of corporations if these trade agreements become law. A federal "Buy American" law can be considered a "trade barrier" and a corporation can sue American taxpayers. A city or state can pass an environmental law and be sued. So it's a real attack on our Constitution. The judiciary gets totally decapitated — both our legislature and our courts, two thirds of our government, are destroyed by this. It will set up a new form of governance that puts corporations before democracy. Add to that, research by CEPR shows 90% of Americans will see their income go down, while the wealthiest get richer. More jobs will be lost and the trade deficit will continue to expand. The Senate Finance Committee is where the corruption began: just last year alone the members received $237 million in donations. It is the most corrupt congressional committee.
https://www.popularresistance.org/fast-track-reveals-deep-corruption-of-...
(I would read the entire article if you're interested in tax loopholes.)
From Wall Street on Parade: At approximately 1:07 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, April 11, during the annual Cherry Blossom Festival celebrating springtime in the Nation’s Capitol, a 22-year old man took his own life with a gun on the Capitol grounds with a protest sign taped to his hand. According to the Washington Post, the sign read: “Tax the one percent.”
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/04/22-year-old-commits-suicide-at-cap...
It sounds like the New York Times is "evolving" ...
"Americans’ desire to soak the rich has diminished even as the rich have more wealth available that could, theoretically, be soaked. It's not just public opinion polls, either. It shows up in the actual policies espoused by candidates for office and enacted by Congress."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/upshot/why-americans-dont-want-to-soak...
The New Yorker is also making strange claims:
"In the 2016 Presidential race, there is, naturally, a lot of interest in how voters view the prospect of the federal government adopting more redistributive policies, such as raising taxes on the wealthy. Intuition and rational-choice theory would suggest that, as the gap between the wealthy and everybody else increases, support for redistribution goes up. But a number of empirical studies published in recent years have cast doubt on this theory, finding that support for redistribution has remained flat, or even that it has fallen."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-support-for-income-redistr...
I think you are right but we might look at volume of sales vs. prices. How bad off is demand these days? A lot of people are now owning cars which get > 30mpg?
the 0.6% decrease in sales at gas stations looks to be in error, as gasoline prices were up 3.9% in March, so we would expect to see a significant revision in that figure when the advance report for April is released a month from now...
per recent posting, from my experience as an SSA Interpreter, no one can submit a bogus Disability claim and get approved. Claimant must be seen by two SSA physicians & have substantial medical reports from their own doctors. And the % of 99er's Long-term Unemployed, haven't dropped out of the work force. They survive on P/T jobs or become self-employed. FOX News can only maintain an audience by portraying villains on any given issue or persons. Truthful reporting doesn't make money for them.
Conglomerates control so much that is under different brand names to make it seem like choice, when there is little choice. Food is an example where just a few own all of the brand names, ConAgra Foods as an example. Yum Foods for fast food as another.
(* This is from a joint investigation of The Center for Public Integrity and The Seattle Times)
Clayton-owned mobile home dealerships with different names and similar banners offer to “BEAT OR MATCH ANY DEAL.” Customers say they thought they were comparison shopping, when they were really visiting multiple Clayton-owned dealerships — all owned by one company.
The U.S. second richest man, Warren Buffett, owns Berkshire Hathaway, which owns Clayton, the mobile home industry’s biggest manufacturer and lender. Clayton is a many-headed hydra with companies operating under at least 18 names. It also sells property insurance on their mobile homes — and repossesses them when borrowers fail to pay.
Berkshire Hathaway extracts value at every stage of the process. Clayton even builds the homes with materials supplied by other Berkshire subsidiaries. And Clayton borrows from Berkshire to make mobile home loans, paying up to an extra percentage point on top of Berkshire’s own borrowing costs.
Clayton customers described a consistent array of deceptive practices that locked them into ruinous deals: loan terms that changed abruptly after they paid deposits or prepared land for their new homes; surprise fees tacked on to loans; and pressure to take on excessive payments based on false promises that they could later refinance. Former dealers said the company encouraged them to steer buyers to finance with Clayton’s own high-interest lenders. Those loans averaged 7 percentage points higher than the typical home loan in 2013.
Buyers told of Clayton collection agents urging them to cut back on food and medical care or seek handouts in order to make house payments. If they don't, their mobile homes are repossessed.
Berkshire Hathaway’s Omaha headquarters sent a statement on behalf of Clayton Homes to the Omaha World-Herald (which is also owned by Berkshire Hathaway) to dispute the allegations.
(* Read more in the links below about Warren Buffett's sleazy company to see why we need more government regulation, not less, as the Republicans always want.)
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/03/17024/warren-buffetts-mobile-h...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/06/17081/look-berkshire-hathaways...
But a "populist Democrat" would. Legislation to increase Social Security benefits and boosting payroll taxes to cover the cost, now has 58 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, Elizabeth Warren won 42 Democratic votes (with just two Democrats voting no) for a nonbinding resolution calling for a “sustainable expansion of benefits.” A spokesman declined to comment on Hillary Clinton’s current position on this issue. (Silence speaks a million words.) Hillary is not known as a "progressive" Democrat (like FDR or Elizabeth Warren), but as a "New" pro-corporate "centrist" Democrat. In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in 2013, the "centrist" Democratic think tank "Third Way" called plans to increase benefits “reckless” and “irresponsible”. (So now we know what Hillary might privately think.)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-rethink-social-security-strategy-1...
How Elizabeth Warren Made Expanding Social Security Cool: "Warren just turned Social Security expansion—once a progressive pipe dream—into a tough-to-ignore 2016 issue."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/can-elizabeth-warren-expand-...
* The link to that poll in the above article doesn't work, but other polls at their website can be found here:
http://www.socialsecurityworks.org/new-polling-shows-support-expanding-s...
A solution for the social security dilemma: "There are basically three options to address the problem: increase taxes; reduce benefits; or obtain higher rates of return by privatizing the system ... Some argue for gradually increasing the existing tax rate on both the employee and employer by two percent over a period of twenty years and reducing the annual cost of living (COLA) on the basis that senior spending needs are less than folks in the current workforce. Others suggest increasing the retirement age to 70 and reducing the monthly payments. Another option is to privatize the system by moving from the current 'defined benefit' model to a system where new beneficiaries and those over, for example, age 50 are moved to a system of private accounts ... However, I suggest a more simple approach -- eliminate the taxable maximum ("TAXMAX"). Specifically, instead of taxing only the first $118,500 (plus annual increases based on COLA), individuals would pay on full salary. Thus an individual earning, for example, $750,000 would pay the rate on the full salary rather than just to $118,500. There would be no increase on others."
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/04/a_solution_for_the_social_se...
Last week, media reports exposed the fact that thousands “anti-net neutrality” emails sent to lawmakers came from a shadowy Koch-funded group that’s now being accused of “identity theft” for sending emails from people who had never signed up to oppose net neutrality.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/net-neutrality-email-american-comm...
This morning, the New York times revealed that Comcast has been calling in favors from the many politicians, think tanks, and organizations that they “generously” donate to. Basically they’re bribing politicians and groups to send letters to Congress and the FCC in favor of Comcast’s takeover of Time Warner Cable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/comcast-recruits-its-be...
It even looks like Comcast straight up wrote Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s letter for him.
http://www.thenation.com/article/203169/did-comcast-ghostwrite-rahm-eman...
Cities and towns around the country are developing municipal broadband networks that are both faster and less expensive than the services offered by big cable and Internet companies. But local governments in 19 states don’t have that option due to anti-consumer state laws that ban or restrict municipal broadband. These state laws are a cynical attempt to preserve the profits of big cable companies.
Obama calls for cities to build government-run high-speed internet
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7546865/obama-municipal-broadband-fcc
Booker, Markey, McCaskill Introduce Community Broadband Act
http://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=190
Census: Computer ownership, internet connection varies widely across U.S.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/census-computer-ownershi...
Obama calls for end to 19 state laws that harm community broadband
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/01/obama-calls-for-end-to-19-state-...
Why the F.C.C.’s Municipal-Broadband Ruling Matters, Too
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/fcc-municipal-broadband-rulin...
Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in ATM cash withdrawals under a new law sent last week to Republican Sam Brownback's desk by the state legislature. The Kansas TANF program offers a family of three as much as $429 per month in cash benefits distributed on government-issued debit cards.
Liz Schott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "This provision makes it nearly impossible for a recipient who does not have a checking account to pay rent. Moreover, it actually takes money from the pockets of poor families since they will need to pay 85 cents for each additional withdrawal after the first one in a month, and often more with ATM transaction fees."
Changes by the Brownback administration have already reduced TANF enrollment significantly. The number of Kansans receiving benefits has declined from 38,000 in 2011 to 15,000 last year. (This is literally starving the beasts).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/04/kansas-welfare_n_7001116.html
Matias
Thank you for the critique. I am familiar with the neoclassical interest rate adjustment argument (which I also reject). But I also reject Keynes more fundamental argument of any kind of link between S & I. I realize Keynes was writing when the world was on a gold standard, so a comparison today may or may not be fair, but if I'm my memory does not fail me, credit was extended far beyond savings in the form of gold. I think the implications are easier to see in a modern economy. Say no one saves at all. Modern credit can still be created. Several new books on banking in modern England argue this point. Thus in my view there is no fundamental link between investment and saving. As an engineer, I see investment as a function of technology required to execute the lowest cost product and consumer demand (savings determined by consumer, not investment) for a given product. In other words, if 10% vs 25% of GDP is required given a state of technology, in both cases full employment will be achieved if consumer spend their income. Maybe I'm missing a fundamental point?
I'll check out your links you suggested.
Excellent analysis. Your last (favorite) graph is very insightful.
Those "sponsored" corporate spin "think tanks" should be banned. Misinformation machine at it again.
"There's no reason at all why estates shouldn't be taxed 100%. The excess wealth is only hoarded for the benefit of privileged generations 100 years into the future for a handful of very rich families (like the Waltons). It does very little good for anybody else." If one is going to indeed tax all estates at 100%, I suspect you need to be at least very careful about how you go about getting there or you will trigger a bottoming-out of assets from the need to sell-off the estate to pay the taxes. I suppose if one's goal is to peanut butter wealth that would be one way to go about doing it though I'm not sure it would lift the lower end as much as it drops the top.
In the specific case of farms, prepare for whatever is left of the family farm to go away entirely.
Pages