World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
One year after the tax cut analysis shows the effects were muted and most of the increase in business investment comes from the drop in energy prices. The U.S. economy grew 3% in 2018. The tax cut lowered the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35% and cut rates for closely held businesses. Analysis shows investment growth picking up from trends in 2016 and 2017.

Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As the final Republican tax bill is debated in Congress on December 19, 2017, Senator Bob Casey cited the following points from the Joint Committee on Taxation Report on the floor of the Senate.  1. Americans building their hopes that their pay checks in February 2018 will be increasing are in for a big disappointment said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a senior member of the Finance Committee. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimate is that for the 57 million families making less than 100,000 dollars a year the tax cuts in the Republican legislation will either not reduce their taxes or reduce the taxes by about $100 a year. 2. The bill does little for the big tasks facing America of rebuilding failing infrastructure. Senator Casey cited 4500 bridges needing repair or replacement in Pennsylvania alone. It also does little for health care access for middle class families and is likely to lead to 10% increase in health care premiums. Affordability of college and other hurdles of middle class and working class families remain unaddressed.   3. The $9 billion in the estate tax cuts would finance the Children's Health Insurance program which has expired.  4. The $36 billion in tax cuts for corporations comes at a time when corporate profits are at the highest they have been in 15 years, according to Vanguard founder Bogle. He also points out that wages as a percentage of GDP are the lowest in 15 years. The tax cuts in the Republican bill are not likely to correct this imbalance.  5. The share of GDP of people making more than one million dollars in 1980 was 11%, this is up now in 2017 to 20%. This has led to questions about the wisdom of these tax cuts which disproportionately benefit a very small percentage of Americans who do not need these tax cuts, and come with significant sacrifices for the middle class in terms of what is available in public services, and the cost to their children as infrastructure and access to health and education is made more distant because of a growing U.S. debt from this tax cut. The big problem then with this bill is that it further damages intergenerational mobility in the U.S., undermining the foundation of a democratic society. Damage has already happened in the past three decades as Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen pointed out at a conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality on Oct. 17, 2014, saying-"The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression." This is why there is substantial agreement in the media from the Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip to Krugman in the New York Times that the bill fails to correct a harmful trend, and goes further in the wrong direction for a democratic society.       ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ provides this exceptional report offering readers remarkable clarity on what the Republican Tax Law does- its high and low points.  High Points 1. It reduces the corporate tax rate to bring it in line with other advanced industrialized countries. The corporate tax rate in Germany and Japan is 30%, in the UK it is 19%. For 5 years businesses can write off capital equipment immediately instead of depreciating over a couple of years. This could boost investment and growth. 2.  The law takes aim at deductions that led to distortions. It limits the mortgage interest deduction, and caps the deduction for state and local taxes. This removes the incentive to pay more for homes that exacerbated the housing crisis in 2008. The Alternative Minimum Tax is largely removed. The Low Points 1. The biggest drawback is that lawmakers did not properly fund the tax cuts. Of the 10 costliest tax breaks nine were not touched, including employer health insurance, retirement savings, capital gains. Only the state and local taxes deduction was reduced. And a new tax deduction  was created, a 20% tax deduction for small business (proprietors and partnerships) paying taxes on their individual tax returns. Taxes on the wealthy or value added taxes, reducing tax breaks, is how other advanced industrialized countries paid for the corporate tax cuts, but did not happen here. Additional economic growth  to generate added tax revenues is the way Republicans in Congress say this is funded. Yet this is a questionable assumption as Britain reduced the corporate tax rate to 19% without seeing a surge in economic growth, as Greg Ip pointed out in an earlier WSJ article. At best the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates $500 billion over a decade in added revenues from added growth leaving $1 trillion to be added to the deficit. The WhartonPenn Budget Model (WPBM) estimates only $140 to $367 bill from the additional economic growth resulting in added tax revenues. Under this model only 0.03 to 0.08 percent added U.S. economic growth per year is expected from the Republican Tax Cuts. Such a situation would be bad  for the U.S. as the gradual improvement in Debt to GDP ratio to 78% following the financial crisis of 2008 would be sharply reversed taking the ratio to 97% by 2027. An unsustainable trajectory which will require tax increases in a few years and hurt investment in education, health and infrastructure into the future. This is what worries many experts most on both sides of the political spectrum today about what the Republican Congress has pushed through for a legislative "victory." This is why experts believe this is not serious tax reform and will require a new effort after 2019.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out the major problem in the Republican tax cut legislation in 2017- not enough to help the middle class and adding 1 trillion dollars to the deficit. Krugman says even the Bush tax cuts had enough broad public approval because of help to the middle class. So what is the Republican message and rationale for taking this action? This is that the tax cuts will generate an economic boom . Yet the tax cuts in other countries including Britain, as Greg Ip pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, have shown that this does not lead to the boost in economic growth that is expected. Krugman agrees that this is unlikely to happen. There is another rational explanation and this is Republican need for a legislative victory heading into next years midterm elections. In which case the decision for tax cuts was not really based on the deep sense and conviction after much debate that this will inevitably create a surge in economic  growth. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This view from the Editorial Board comes as Republicans in Congress geared up for a legislative victory decided to ignore the expert opinion of the Joint Committee on Taxation and polls showing a majority of Americans disapprove of the tax law. It says a "corrosive partisanship" that is affecting the nation has led to this decision. Not an informed consensus necessary to make real and lasting changes to the tax laws that increase growth without disrupting hard won gains in social cohesion after World War II.  Republicans pushed through a trillion and half dollars in tax cuts in the law that reduces the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, and cut taxes in 2019 by 51 times ($51,400) for the top 1% of incomes compared to ($1000) for middle class families earning less than $100,000 (Tax Policy Center). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it will add $1 trillion to the U.S. deficit as only $500 billion is expected in increase in government revenues over a decade from additional economic growth. This is supported by evidence from countries such as Britain that implemented this type of corporate tax cut without generating much economic growth, says Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal. The "victory" then comes at a high cost says the Washington Post- in years to come programs to help the growing lower middle class and working class will be subject to cuts and taxes will have to rise to balance budgets.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senators approved the U.S. Republican tax bill 51 to 49 votes on December 1, 2017. The 500 page bill was approved with arewritten version containing more changes made at the last minute to get it passed in the early morning hours. It was passed along party lines with all Democrats opposing. The last minute changes were made to get Collins of Maine and Johnson of Wisconsin on board. A concession was made on DACA young undocumented immigrants for Flake of Arizona. In this way its passage was ensured after failure to repeal Obama health legislation. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation report says the bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion over a decade. Corker of Tennessee opposed the bill for this reason, but failed to convince other senators who believe the bill will generate robust growth and the deficit report is too pessimistic. The tax cut bill helps 70% of middle class families and may not help others because of removal of deductions such as the one for state and local income taxes. Business gets a permanent tax rate of 20 percent instead of 35 percent which is made permanent. Owners of small business not set up as corporations also get a tax break for small business. To offset the cost of the changes the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations is retained and a tax on corporations with assets held overseas was increased. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ cautions about thinking that the GDP growth of 3% is likely to be achieved with the Trump plan for a corporate tax rate of 15%. He says evidence from Britain and Canada- Britain reducing the tax rate from 30% in 2007 to 19% today, and Canada from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2004- is disappointing. In Britain the increase in GDP averaged about 0.1% a year. Business investment increases with cut in corporate taxes, and the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than other advanced countries such as Germany, yet GDP growth includes other factors, such as the business cycle, demographics, productivity growth, aging, technology, regulation, says Ip. It is better if the tax cuts are spread broadly over the population, and tax cuts are offset to a greater extent by savings in other areas, and that tax cuts promote productivity boosting investment, to create enough of a surge in growth above 2%.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Dec. 13, 2016, that it would increase its benchmark short term interest rate by 0.25 percentage point, to between 0.50% and 0.75%. The increase will also be reflected in business and household borrowing costs. The Fed also announced its intention to make 0.75% percentage point increase in 2017, possibly in 3 quarter percentage point moves. The Fed's forecast is for the fed-funds rate to reach 2.1% at the end of 2018, and 2.9% at the end of 2019. The Fed's policy is based on a sense of strong labor market with unemployment falling, and says it is based on discussion at a 2 day meeting, and "in view of realized and expected labor-market conditions and inflation." This reflects a view that there is now not that much slack in the labor market, that further improvements could trigger higher inflation. Fed forecasts for inflation are for it to increase from 1.5% in 2016 to 1.9% in 2017 and to the target of 2% in 2018. The unemployment rate of 4.6% in 2016 is forecast to go to 4.5% in 2017 and remain at that level till 2019. Economic growth is forecast at a median annual rate of 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, only a slight improvement from last forecast in Sept. 2016. Support for chairwoman Yellen's policy decision was unanimous. See the link on views of NYT's Binyamin Applebaum and Neil Irwin on how Fed rate policy and economic growth under the Trump administration is likely to play out, and Ian Talley's report on impact on exports with a stronger dollar in WSJ. These views also are in line with the Fed's forecasts and policy decision as they reflect the concerns of the Fed about inflation, and also reflect the Fed's view that growth will be close to 2% in 2017-2019, and not the 3-4% stated by Trump and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin. Fed rate policies to keep inflation at about 2% tend to counter stimulus spending by the Trump administration and effect of tax cuts. The size of the stimulus and the tax cuts are also likely to be much smaller than stated because of Republican concerns about the deficit in the U.S. Congress, according to these views. The stronger dollar also has the paradoxical effect of making trade gains more difficult while increasing trade friction in tougher bargaining supported by Trump, making the higher growth targets harder to reach.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Congressional Budget Office projections show the difficult choices facing the U.S. - tackling the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cuts expire will lead to low growth. The alternative is growth with much higher deficits. GDP growth would be at about 2.3% in this fiscal year if the payroll tax cut is kept till December 2012. In fiscal 2013 if a number of tax cuts are permitted to expire and across the board spending cuts take effect as scheduled GDP growth would decline to 1.1%. Taxes would increase by $465 billion in 2013 over 2012 if tax cuts expire - individuals and companies would pay $2.99 trillion in taxes in fiscal year 2013 in that scenario. Spending cuts would take effect in Jan 2013 for $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The result- " a sharp fiscal contraction" in the words of CBO director Elmendorf. Unemployment would go up to 8.9% in 2012 year end and 9.2% in 2013 yearend from 8.5% today, if no agreement is made to extend tax cuts and block spending cuts. The risk of not taking the debt reduction actions is to let the debt grow to $11 trillion over 10 years, an unsustainable path, compared to about $3.1 trillion over 10 years if tax cuts are permitted to expire and spending cuts take place. This is the tough choice facing America in 2012, and comes when Europe is facing similar tough choices....
BBC News Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The European Union Commission says Ireland must recover 13 billion euros in back taxes for giving tax preferences to Apple that are against EU rules. The EU Commission says Ireland allowed Apple to pay a corporate tax rate of 1% on its European profits in 2003, and .005% in 2014. The EU Commissioner says the use of Ireland as the place where Apple pays taxes on operations in Europe has no base in reality, as most profits are earned in other countries outside Ireland. Taxable profits of Apple "did not correspond to economic reality," according to Ms. Vestager, the EU Commissioner.  In the current environment where political upheaval is unsettling the democratic process in the U.S., Britain, Spain, France and Italy, as well as in Brazil and other countries in the developing world- because of deep recessions, and efforts to cut the deficits with deep cuts in state spending including in education and healthcare, basic services- the moves by companies to reduce taxes to these absurdly low levels such as .005% when other companies in the EU are paying 12.5%, is becoming increasingly unpopular. As pointed out in this BBC News article this sounds like the way Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt operated during the late 19th century, and were seen as operating in a manner that was above the law. Janet Yellen pointed out at a Boston Fed Conference on inequality in Oct 2014 that the bottom half of the distribution or 62 million households in the U.S. in 2013, had a net worth of about $10,000, One quarter of these households had a net worth of zero dollars. The working class and blue collar workers in the U.S. provide much of the support at Trump rallies. Younger college educated people support Sanders, because of the situation of the working and middle class in the U.S., and a similar situation exists in Europe. It is for the sake of the democratic process and delivering services in education, healthcare, and other basic areas to all, that companies small and large need to pay their fair share of taxes, regardless of size, influence, or technological advantages. Today this is is seen by most leaders who draw public support as the right way forward for the U.S., Latin America, Europe and Asian countries, including proper allocation of resources to best serve the needs of working people. For example the 13 billion euros is equal to all of Ireland's healthcare budget, and 66% of its social welfare budget.    ...
The Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Liz Goodwin and Riley Beggin report from Hillard Ohio where Amazon is building a large data center using land adjoining a school and a park for children. Parents are collecting signatures for a ban. About 70% of Americans are opposed to the data centers building in their local area, after an aggressive push with tax breaks and incentives provided by some states. Virginia, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio most aggressive data center builders in the US by 2026- construction jobs, and investment, as pros, electricity usage and use of farmland cons. Ohio's governor DeWine paused tax breaks after realizing that it cost the state $1 billion in lost revenue. Amazon says it has invested $70 billion in the state since 2016. Democrat politicians are not taking up the bans because of some unions supporting the data centers for jobs created in construction. Another reason is that politicians in general face attacks from the tech companies donating to campaigns against them if they call for a ban. Sherrod Brown Democrat in Ohio asks data centers to pay for their electricity but has not supported a ban-  “With data centers, we make sure the investors pay for electricity. Not the people who live in Zanesville or Coshocton or in Cambridge.” The big reason to support it from the jobs perspective is stated by the unions. Tim Burga of the AFL-CIO in Ohio says-  “These are creating good union jobs, both in the construction, but also in the keeping them secure and maintaining them."  Now you have a public frustrated particularly in quiet suburbs of America who see this as an intrusion into their lives, which means Republican and Democrat, Red State and Blue State, makes little difference. Construction workers and unions excited about the prospects for decent jobs after the Obama and Bush elites shipped 5 million jobs (Lighthizer USTR estimate) to China over 2000-2016, and transferred $20 trillion in American wealth to foreign countries by blindly accepting unfair trade with China, EU, Canada, Mexico. And see this as part of the MAGA effort to bring back the supply chains to America for all manufactured products in the interests of reliable supply, national security, and the promise of good paying jobs for the communities across America that depended on these jobs since the industrial revolution inthe US at the turn of the century in 1900. It took only 2 decades to wipe them out under what Lighthizer and Jamieson call "shortsighted leadership" of  Republican Bush and Democrat Obama and their corresponding elites. These communities were hit more than once, twice, thrice, four times in fact- in 2009 by the banker's aided and abetted financial crisis, by Bush starting and Obama continuing the Afghan Iraq wars on different pretexts (diverting trillions of dollars that otherwise go to job creation and manufacturing, new technologies), and then by Covid in 2019. This is the America in which the data center building spree is taking place- a plus if done right and with some carefully thought out plan for water/electricity usage costs and for AI guardrails, protection for farmland and areas near parks and schools, and residential suburbs.   ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
When George Osborne took over at the British Treasury the deficit was 10.2% of GDP. Osborne's hope in 2010 was that the budget could be balanced by 2015, now it looks like this will happen in 2019 or later.The forecast for the end of the 2015 fiscal year is a deficit of 5% of GDP. Lower than expected tax receipts are a big reason for the difficulty in lowering the deficit. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the budget agency, has reduced the forecast for tax receipts for 2015-2019 by 87 billion pounds. This means further spending cuts will be needed, according to OBR. Budget surplus is not expected before 2019. This is happening even though lower inflation and lower market interest rates have helped reduce outlays to service the debt. OBR assumes productivity will increase to 2% for the budget to be balanced in 2019. At the average productivity growth rate of 0.5% seen since 2008, the budget deficit will still be 2.2% in 2019, in another scenario of numbers run by OBR.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2013- for the year beginning Oct. 1, 2012- shows the budget deficit for the year at over $1 trillion. It shows new revenue of $1.7 trillion over 10 years mostly from ending the Bush period tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000 a year, restoring the estate tax to the 2009 level and limiting subsidies for oil and gas companies. It proposes raising the tax rate on dividends from 15% to as much as 39.6%, for households earning more than $250,000 a year. This measure is expected to generate $206 billion over 10 years. The budget also offers "principles" for future tax reform by proposing the Buffett rule replace the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was not indexed for inflation so it has the weakness of putting more middle class taxpayers into AMT, leading to temporary solutions by Congress. The Buffett rule would have people earning more than $1 million pay a tax rate of at least 30%. Many wealthy Americans like Mitt Romney paid lower taxes using deductions to lower tax rates- Romney's tax disclosures show he paid effective tax rate of 14%. The White House says the budget will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years through the new taxes, and small changes to Medicare and Medicaid and other spending cuts. This is in addition to the $1 trillion in spending cuts agreed to in a deficit reduction agreement in 2011 between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The budget proposal proposes investment in education and transportation projects of $137 billion, and continuing through Dec. 2012, a tax break for businesses to increase investment. It includes mandatory spending of $2.7 billion for new community college programs, $6 billion to modernize schools, and $1.8 billion to make homes more energy efficient. It also increases the resources of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC (two agencies overseeing the banks), $26 million for a new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to counter unfair trade practices, and cuts U.S. postal delivery to 5 days a week. The result is a program designed to be balanced in terms of economic fairness, making modest investments in the future for education and energy, continuing policies to stimulate growth, and extending the date for bringing the deficit under control to 2018 instead of 2014 as planned earlier....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Deocuments from the weekly cabinet meeting show the new budget in France will increase revenues from household income taxes by 23%, and business taxes by 30%. The top marginal income tax rate goes up to 45% from 41%. Limiting a deduction for financial charges for company's taxable income brings in $4 billion in 2013, according to the finance ministry. The goal is to cut the budget deficit to 3% of GDP in 2013 from 4.5% in 2012. The finance ministry has assumed higher borrowing rates for future years- 2.9% on 10 year debt for 2013, up to 3.65% in 2015, and is not relying on the low rate of 2.18% on 10 year government bonds as reported by Trade Web Sept 28, 2012. The overall tax burden will be 46.3% in 2013, and 46.7% in 2015. French debt is at 91% of GDP for the 2nd quarter 2012, expected to be 91.3% in 2013 and falling to 82.9% in 2015. Prime minister Ayrault emphasized- "If we don't put a stop to this, taxpayer money will keep paying for debt reimbursement." Swift anticipatory action and unified government-business-labor posture under a favorable borrowing environment characterizes the approach for Britain and France in 2011-2012, compared to the situation in Spain where government action has been slow, not tough enough in cleaning up the banks, fallen behind in anticipating events and the government-business-labor unified posture has cracked under the strain. As a result under an unfavorable borrowing environment money raised from austerity type tax increases now goes to paying for debt reimbursement in Spain, leading to a situation in which debt and deficit reduction targets just get harder to achieve. A looming drop in credit ratings to junk status for Spain only makes the situation harder to overcome. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A new report by Medicare trustees found that the Medicare hospital trust fund would face insolvency by 2029, which is 12 years after the projection made last year. But Medicare's chief actuary questioned this by saying that this assumes cuts in payments to medical providers in the health reform bill would be implemented. Not realistic he says, considering that many doctors would drop out of Medicare causing difficulty for seniors. After 2029 Medicare would be able to pay 85% of the benefits according to this report. Separately the Social Security fund is expected to need a $41 billion cash infusion, with more paid out in benefits, than collected in tax receipts in 2010 and 2011, with this situation getting worse by 2015.
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Fact checking Apple CEO Tim Cook's statements on the EU Commission ruling for $13 billion in back taxes, shows that CEO Tim Cook's statement that "we never asked for, nor did we receive any special deals," is not true. Ireland let Apple determine what it would pay in tax, and Apple had the benefit of loopholes in Irish tax laws, the fact check by experts shows here. Apple's Cook also says it would hurt investment and jobs in Ireland. Another NYT article showed that the entire healthcare budget of Ireland would be covered by the $13 billion, and 66% of its budget for social support services to the public. Apple has 22,000 employees in Europe and 6000 in Ireland in 2016. Based on the $13 billion owed in taxes, for every job in Ireland the cost to Ireland is 2.17 million euros, and for every job in the EU the cost is 590,000 euros. Apple could turn around and locate in some other place, other than Ireland, in which case Ireland does not get the 6000 jobs. This is Ireland's incentive to give Apple tax benefits. Only if all EU countries had common tax laws would it be possible to avoid this situation, and generate much needed tax revenues at a time of cuts in public spending in healthcare, education, and social services, and invest in infrastructure, worker retraining. The alternative is for the EU to look at other remedies. This is what the EU Commissioner Vestager did when she announced that this was a state subsidy and illegal under EU rules. Because the appeal by Apple goes to the EU Courts the appeal is difficult say legal experts. The EU courts look at the legal aspects of the ruling, was it justified, not at the overall aspect of the ruling by Vestager, as EU Competition Commissioner. This may be why there is so much outcry from Apple, and other digital companies.  ...
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The other title of this article in the NYT was "California's fading Political Machines and volatile race for Governor." Gone are the days when Pat Brown was able to put his son Jerry Brown in the race for governor, there are 9 persons running for governor of California in 2026. The current governor Gavin Newsom is said to be promoting his book in Nashville, Tennessee, where many Californians are moving with the inflated cost of housing in the state. Gavin Newsom's grand father gave a $5000 check to Pat Brown in 1943 to run for District Attorney, this report says citing the book. From that time Pat Brown became Attorney General and then governor of California in 1958, defeating Richard Nixon in 1962. In 1962 Pat Brown seemed vulnerable as his signature accomplishment setting up the UC system of college campuses and the water reservoir, tax increases to pay for this, were in their beginning stages and their lasting value not recognized at the time. Nixon from Whittier, California, was a former Vice President and was seen as likely winner. This toughly fought election created the Pat Brown myth and so called machine that helped his son Jerry Brown to two terms as governor 1975 to 1983, and again after serving as Mayor of Oakland and Attorney General to come back to governors race again in 2011 (because term limits came after 2011) and be governor again 2011-2018. Another way of looking at it is that in his last two terms it was also Jerry Brown's careful balancing of the budget and finances of the state, his environmental support, that made him a reliable figure for the public interest not just the political machine backing him.  California to be sure has had popular governors on both sides Reagan won in 1966 as governor of California to succeed Pat Brown. The Kennedys and Pat Brown are matched by the Reagan supporters in the state. In today's situation where China's dominance in industry and manufacturing has affected all parts of deindustrialized America, California is no exception, where much of the middle class has seen their savings eroded, the issues are different and the challenges are different. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Canada's 2015 budget provides an extension till 2025 for a tax break to write off capital investment at an accelerated pace that was first introduced in 2007. Business investment in Canada is slowing to growth of 1% since mid-2012. The tax rate for small business over four years starting in 2016 will be cut from 11% to 9%.
BusinessWeek Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Glenn Hubbard, Professor at Columbia University and Bush adviser who helped design the Bush tax cuts, has an uneasy sense about the tax cuts today. He says the tax cuts have been undermined by years of deficit spending. The Bush tax cuts expire Dec 31st 2010 in the USA if Congress does not act. Macroeconomic Advisors estimates that letting the tax cuts expire will take 0.9% off the growth rate. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman prefers to let the tax cuts expire and provide more help to state and local governments to preserve jobs that are being lost due to budget shortfalls. But becuase of the political climate he prefers to let the tax cuts go on for a limited period. The Obama administration may decide to continue with the tax cuts rather than fight the serious battles for deficit reduction, after spending much of its political capital on health care reform. Hubbard also thinks in the current situation its best to keep the tax cuts even with the concern for the deficits. He says the spending during the Bush administration, especially the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is estimated to cost $400 billion from 2004-2013, was a major problem. The incentives to business and investors for productive effort in the Bush tax cuts is uncertain, if it becomes clear that the price for these cuts is higher taxes later on to cover growing deficit spending. Hubbard does not see any serious action on the deficit till the next Presidential term and sees it better to keep the tax cuts till then, when some serious discussion can take place....
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
India replaced a patchwork of 15 state and federal taxes with a unified single Goods and Services Tax to ease the hurdles for businesses to operate nationwide across state boundaries. This is a major a accomplishment for the Modi government as it is expected to increase economic growth by between 0.5% to 2%, according to experts. This removes the obstacles to growth and doing business when companies had to comply with a maze of different tax policies by individual states. Ironically the GST was introduced by the Congress party government in 2011, but opposed by opposition parties then and the Congress party in opposition now in the upper house, Rajya Sabha. By winning the support of smaller parties the Modi government was able to reduce the influence of the Congress party and get the constitutional amendment passed for the single GST tax system replacing the old patchwork taxes. The amendment has to be approved by the majority of state legislatures in India and by the president. Parliament must pass legislation to setup the new tax system, and state legislature pass their legislation. Issues at what rate to set up the GST remain to be solved, with the need to avoid sparking inflation and thereby hurting slow job growth with millions of young people entering the job market each year. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Wind and solar tax credits to phase out end of 2027 instead of 2032 under Senate version of US Tax Cuts Bill. This gives less time for renewable projects in solar and wind to get these tax credits and places them in a difficult situation. Senator Tillis of North Carolina who voted against the bill plans not to run again. The 3B Tax Cuts Bill is being considered in Congress this weekend to be placed on president's desk before July 4th weekend. The generous subsidies of the Biden administration are being questioned by the new Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How to deal with Bush era tax cuts is a big issue dividing Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. If no deal is reached by Jan 1. taxes on the average middle income family would increase by $2000 in 2013. Median inflation adjusted income declined 8.9% to $50,054 in 2011 from $54,999 in 1999, and economic mobility has fallen. The Democrat's position is for Bush tax cuts to apply to incomes below $250,000. Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office and Jared Bernstein point out that while this makes the tax code move in a progressive direction it also creates handicaps in providing a sufficient revenue base to support middle class spending programs down the road. According to the Tax Polcy Center, if Congress is unable to reach agreement and all tax increases go into effect Jan 1, taxpayers in the bottom 20% of income distribution would see a $412 increase in taxes compared to an increase of $633,000 for the top 0.1%. New York Mayor Bloomberg has supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all groups, saying there is no free lunch. Alan Krueger, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, says the trends caused by globalization and skill-biased technological change which have increased inequality are likely to continue or accelerate. ...

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us