LyrArc Article Gist
The two front runners among Democrats in the campaign for President in the U.S. are building their lead on the basis of programs to reduce inequality and build the social fabric. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren support a program of Medicare For All. This program is a single payer program run by the government so that medical costs can be cut by the government directly negotiating cuts, which would reduce some of the cost.The WSJ looks at the ways this can be financed at a cost of between $11 trillion over a decade. Programs of less extensive coverage  in Medicare for All excluding undocumented workers and having individuals share some costs would cost this much, according to some experts.The gap would be financed by taxes such as that on Medicare currently. Sanders additional tax premium would be 7.5% paid by employers and 4% by employees. About $1 trillion is generated by each percentage point of taxes over a decade says CBO, so that a combined 11.5%  tax would cover Medicare for All. Alternatives or some combination would include this with taxes on the wealthy. Tax hikes on wealth, income and financial transactions would generate $11 trillion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget. Currently a majority favors a Medicare for All plan, and this support could grow as people understand that it would be progressive and reduce the burden on the middle class by shifting some of the burden to the wealthier in society in today's economy, where much of the increase in wealth over the last 3 decades has gone to upper income people. Much more so in the U.S. than in Europe creating a tear in the social fabric and disaffection with Democrats, who in earlier administrations from Clinton to Obama failed to maintain the gains made under FDR, Truman and Kennedy. This has led to a Republican administration under president Trump that won over disaffected Democrats but hope to merley to maintain the status quo. Warren is trying to change this with bold social programs that fit today's needs and circumstances. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan in the U.S. draws support from about 60% of people polled for the New York Times. Over 66% support Warren's 2% wealth tax on people with wealth over $50 million. The support is consistent among all groups, gender and race. Only a group of Republican men with college degrees which is likely to include the bulk of the people with wealth over $50 million oppose the wealth tax and Medicare for All. Over the past year wealth tax and Medicare for All support has grown with about 60% of people supporting Medicare for All, a plan similar to government plans in most of Europe and in Canada which have worked over many years.

Warren's plan wins support by showing how it will be paid for and why most people will pay no more than they are paying today, and overall much less because of unnecessary costs taken out of the system.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib, executive editor of of the WSJ, attributes the divisions in America both on the left and the right to a deep skepticism among people about the intentions of the U.S. political and financial establishment to conduct the country's affairs in a way that benefits all people. Both the traditional Democratic and Republican establishments, the Bush-Reagan, Clinton-Obama politicians and the financial community were seen as self-serving and looking after their own interests. The right of center supply side economics and the the tolerance for immigration levels of 30% rise in the last decade were discredited. A much larger recovery program was seen as needed from the deeply bruising effects of the financial crisis of 2008, started by the reckless financial establishment behaviours, than either the Reagan supply siders or the Obama people had understood or planned. This opened the way for Mr. Trump to take up the cause of ordinary Americans with a message of ambitious infrastructure development, confronting China's use of trade adversely affecting American workers, and slowing down immigration. And within the Democratic party the emergence of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders with programs for a wealth tax that would finance Medicare for All and college education supported by the federal government. Both the traditional Republicans under Bush and Democrats under Clinton Obama were seen not upto the task, after the 2008 financial and economic crisis created deeper scars than were imagined possible. The lack of effective policies under Bush or Obama simply aggravating the situation further. The culture wars have split Americans down the middle with a breakdown of the traditional American family and social structures creating deep anxieties in America. Obama's comments unsettled people in the heartland when he said that economic decline in the Rust Belt had made people there to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."   The trillions of dollars spent in wars in Asia and the Middle East were seen by Mr. Trump as an enormous waste when much needed investment was deprived of attention at home. Mr. Trump hammered this point home till today it is well accepted across America.  Even as political divisions persist they are now on how to tackle the redevelopment and growth of the U.S. The new focus of agreement has shifted with agreement across the country that infrastructure development in the U.S. and defending workers rights to jobs and opportunities is the top priority. That trade relations need to be reshaped keeping this priority ever present in negotiations. As a result all parties could agree on infrastructure and the recently concluded agreement for trade with Mexico and Canada and phase 1 of negotiated agreement with China. In overseas affairs the U.S. under Trump seeks cost sharing with a 2% of GDP defense spending by other nations so that money can be diverted to use at home. In this sense the debate has already shifted in the U.S. and the UK to how to address the problems of uneven development and growth across the two countries and better allocation of scarce resources to needs at home. Which is for the U.S. a good thing in the middle of all the perception of divisions.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders defend Medicare for All, a version of free healthcare for all, and free university, from attacks by moderates. So far in the campaign in the Democrats part the moderates have failed to gain traction. Warren and Sanders lead the field. The only other contender is from the old Obama presidency, Mr. Joe Biden. Warren and Sanders say now is the time for bold ideas. Sanders won the Michigan and Wisconsin primaries, by articulating this vision in the last campaign 4 years ago.

LyrArc Article Gist
A Pew Research poll shows Democratic voters now favor a bold ambitious agenda by large margins. Voters seeking compromise swung sharply going downwards from 69% to 46%. Many are calling for Medicare for All. In the Republican Party the shift is slight from 46% to 44%.

In the House the Congressional Progressive Caucus now has about 90 members. Of the 50 newly elected members who are House Democrats 20 are part of this Caucus pushing for bold action.

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt says that there is little reason to think that the flatter rates are better always. With the need to finance Medicare and health care for all, the government can use the extra dollars from taxing the very wealthy, the very rich in different tax brackets. The top bracket in 2008 started at 357,000, and you paid 35% whether you made 400,000, or $4 million, or $40 million. So basically the upper middle class was lumped in with the extremely wealthy. And considering the cost of college tutions for 2 or 3 kids, the upper middle class is only middle class. It makes sense not to lump the two together. Considering that there has been a lot of wealth accumulated at the the very high end, it would also reduce inequality, generate tax revenues for health care, and not have much effect in the incentives for generating economic growth. It is something he says the Obama adminisstration may and should consider.

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's Tax Service reports the number of taxpayers reporting incomes of 1 million pounds a year declined by over 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the prior year. In 2010 the Labor government of Gordon Brown introduced a 50% income tax rate for this income group, up from 40%. The number of million dollar incomes filed declined to 6000 from 16000 in 2009-2010, and revenues declined from 13.4 billion pounds or 9% of total taxes from taxpayers to 6.5 billion pounds or 4.4% or about half. The Labor government had hoped for additional 2.5 billion pounds in revenue, showig unintended consequences and surprises in economic policies.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, says letting the fiscal cliff cuts in spending go into effect is fairer to the poor and middle class than the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts proposed by president Obama and the Democrats. He says the pressure of public opinion would lead to some minideals for the Bush tax cuts to go to lower incomes and for restoring some funds to defense after the fiscal cliff agreement goes into effect, leading to a fairer outcome.

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.   ...

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
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
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....