LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Balz says former prime minister Blair's policies in Britain (1997-2007) closely followed the policies of moving to centrist positions of U.S. president Clinton, with Blair's election in 1997 following Clinton's wins in 1992 and 1996. Clinton followed the Reagan years and Blair the Thatcher years in government, in modifying the early postwar ideas about the economy. The election of Corbyn by 59.5% of the vote of Labor party members, exceeds the 57% achieved by Blair in 1994. The opposing candidates did very poorly. Yvette Cooper, who most resembled Blair's positions was seen as waffling on issues by not taking clear positions. She lost badly with 4.5% of the vote, showing that something significantly has changed with the the deep recession following the 2008 financial crisis, and the recovery through years of austerity policies under Cameron's Conservative government. Balz's view is that this is likely to bring up the same debate in the Democratic party- Corbyn proposes a national investment bank for large investments in education, health services and infrastructure, and a reversal of Labor policies introducing fees for college education to increase opportunity. Sanders has not proposed a national investment bank, but says he would invest in education ( including reversing the spiralling education costs), health services, infrastructure, and other areas. Hillary Clinton has made the issue of upward mobility for the middle and working class a central issue in her campaign, but lacks the authenticity claimed by Sanders, who has tapped into anti-establishment feeling following the lack of recovery in wages under 7 years of the Democratic party government in the U.S. In this context Jeb Bush has also stated at the 2013 CPAC conference that social and economic mobility is the central issue of our times, only he would approach it by giving business incentives to increase business investment to create jobs and increase wages; and by adopting a tax code that would be also fair to the middle and working class....

LyrArc Article Gist
Daniel Altman's proposal for a tax on wealth over $1 million. He makes the case for taxing wealth not incomes to reduce inequality as this is where the situation in terms of inequality has worsened for the U.S. in recent decades. To support this proposal Altman cites the change in the U.S. Ginni coefficient, which measures inequality. The Ginni coefficient is anumber from 0 to 100 which goes up with higher income inequality. From the late 70's to the 1990's, the Cnesus Bureau showed this to be in the low 40's. By 1992 the Ginni coefficient went up to the mid-70's, according to the Federal Reserve data. It increased to about 80 in 2010. In 1992 the top 10% in the U.S. population controlled 20 times the wealth of the bottom 50%. By 2010 this figure triples to 65 times. and the graduated income tax even if it redistributes a small share of the wealth does little to affect the trend of wealth extremes from building up and threatening the social fabric of America, reducing mobility and opportunities for the bottom 50% to unprecedented levels since the 1950's. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Tim Scott describe the event on poverty organized by the Jack Kemp Foundation in Jan. 2016, in which both Congressmen are moderators. Ryan and Scott point out the importance of upward educational and economic mobility for working class and middle class people. The 2 Republican leaders say education, work, opportunity and accountability for federal spending in anti-poverty programs are critical parts of their program for addressing the problem. They suggest trying different solutions by giving states more opportunity to try different solutions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Buffett's view that higher capital gains taxes will not result in less business investment. He favors a $500,000 figure instead of the $250,000 proposed by president Obama for Bush tax cuts for incomes below that level.

LyrArc Article Gist
Most Americans pay less in taxes, including state, local and federal taxes, today than in 1980 in inflation adjusted dollars. The taxes have gone down by 2-3% for incomes in the range of $50,000 to $150,000, and gone down by 3-4% for incomes between $150,000 and $350,000. Taxes have gone down over 7% for incomes above $350,000. The main reason is the decline in federal income taxes.Tax rates increased in the period to 1990 and declined from 1990 to 2010. The Democratic party and president Obama are pushing for increase in taxes for incomes above $250,000. Republicans are resisting the changes citing disincentives to investment and growth for small business which generates a large proportion of new jobs created in the U.S. economy. The New York Times study shows the percent of the U.S. population that makes between $200,000 and $350,000 almost doubling in the period 1980-2010 and at the same time its share of the U.S. income remaining the same - many small business owners who hire employees would fall into this income category. Republican's response is for tax reforms that reduce loopholes, deductions and other tax expeditures that disproportionately help the wealthy. Democrats say this cannot create enough revenues to address the deficit, when mortgage deductions, charitable deductions are excluded. The back and forth is leading to stalemate but also opening up discussion for the first time on whether the mortgage and charitable deductions make sense in today's environment. A significant portion of revenues lost in the mortgage deduction goes to affluent households, subsidizing larger borrowings to build larger homes than otherwise, according to the Brookings Institution. Politicians have resisted changes that would go against powerful lobyying groups in the past, yet the impasse has opened up new thinking outside the box because of the pressing need to come up with a solution....