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.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The tax plan offered by Jeb Bush in September 2014 is based on simplifying the tax code to three rates, lowering the corporate tax rate to stimulate business investment and growth. It will pay for this by limiting itemized deductions to 2% of adjusted gross income, removing state and local tax deductions, by generating higher growth of estimated 0.5% per year which translates into higher tax revenues, and by increasing the deficit by $1.2 trillion. In the last tax debate economists such as Martin Feldstein and other experts proposed removing or limiting the itemized deductions. Simplifying the code and lowering corporate tax rates has been favored as a method to jumpstart growth by many experts, but was not taken up during the deep recession following the 2008-2009 financial crisis when the stimulus added to the deficit. The 3 tax rates changes the current 7 brackets to 10 percent, 25 percent and 28%, with the coporate tax rate lowered to 20%. The plan removes the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax, marraige penalty tax, leaves charitable deductions as now. To help the people at the lower end in incomes and the middle class- the standard deduction is doubled, the earned income tax credit expanded. Companies would be allowed to deduct capital investments, and there would be a gradual phase out of taxation on income American companies earn overseas. Hedge funds will not have access to a loophole called "carried interest." The plan comes as the American economy is in recovery mode, making it more likely that increased growth would generate extra tax revenues....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ says the resignation and downfall of Boris Johnson in Britain comes from the dissembling that resulted in loss of confidence in his Conservative party, but also in a larger sense from the failure of his agenda to revive Britain.  Not much has happened in the promise to invest in and revive the failing economy and social setting in the north of England. Inflation was hitting British households hard with inflation at close to 9% in 2022. Home electricity and natural gas prices spiked 54% in April and are expected to go up 40% in October. Johnson raised the payroll tax 2.5% to fund the NHS. Corporate tax rate was to go up to 26% from 19%. Green taxes helped energy prices go up, and Johnson did not cut the consumption tax or green taxes on gasoline or diesel or household energy says the WSJ, and kept the household income tax brackets the same even with inflation so households would see a large tax increase. In this sense Boris Johnson with his exuberant personal style and enthusiasm promised a lot after taking Britain out of the European Union with Brexit. Yet as the months dragged on and after the worst of the pandemic found there was little he could show that would convince Britons of a brighter future. Not for the North of England, not for Britons in other parts of England and in London, and with high inflation and lacking the investment that could change Britain, not much to show for infrastructure improvement or plans for the future. The dissembling and eroding credibility led to the situation that only half way through his term in office his absolute majority in the 2019 election could not keep Boris Johnson in office, and the Conservative party was losing the confidence of the British people.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
With government spending currently at 24% of GDP, the budget proposed by Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Commttee, proposes to bring this down to 22.5% in 2012, and to 20% by 2018. The Ryan proposal would cut spending by $5.8 trillion for 2011-2021, with spending $6.2 trillion less than proposed by the Obama administration. It is a bold effort by House Republicans to bring the deficits down from the $1 trillion plus levels of the last 3 years. Major changes are made under this proposal to Medicare, and Medicaid. People who retire after 2021, would choose from an array of private insurance programs, and the federal government would help pay the premium. Medicare under this arrangement would be a "premium support" system. Medicaid would become a block grant for the states. This proposal estimates a saving of $771 billion on Medicaid over 10 years. The Food Stamp program would also become a block grant system. In addition to this the top individual and corporate tax rates would be 25% instead of 25%, with the changes being revenue neutral as a series of tax breaks would be eliminated....

LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis by Mackintosh in WSJ points out that the low to negative interest  policy of the ECB has hurt savers, bank profits, and makes the ECB unpopular, yet it has shown tangible signs of success in creating jobs. This is true even though unemployment in the EU is still over 10% in some countries. He says that the unemployment is back to where it was in Nov. 1998 before the euro. There are 7.5 million jobs created in EU since beginning of 2014, the point at which ECB went to ultra low interest rates. This is above the 6.3 million created in the U.S. upto 1st quarter 2016. Big difference now is that companies and households are borrowing as rates fell. Inflation at 0.2% in August 2016 for EU is a weak spot, but considering where the EU was just 2-3 years before in 2013, the change is a largely positive one.

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
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.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The European Central Bank left all its interest rates unchanged on September 7, 2016. No changes were made to asset purchase program, which will run until March 2017 or beyond as needed. The ECB left interest rates at 0% for its lending operations, and for overnight deposits at 0.4%.  Inflation is a special concern, as inflation was at 0.2% for August. Business activity and investment in the EU and in the U.S. is weak, and Brexit is still a concern.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Census Bureau shows incomes of American households, the median household income, surged in 2015 by 5.2%. This increased by $2800 to $56,500. This is the largest increase since 1967. It shows that steadily improving employment and hiring is leading to improvement in incomes for the middle and working class. Ris in minimum wage has also helped . The largest increase was for the lowest 20% of the income tiers. Full time working women did better than men, with increase annually of 2.7% for women, and 1.5% for men. Nocitizen incomes increased 10.5% to $45,100, native born households went up 4.4% to $57,200. The number of people without health insurance also declined from 33 million or 10.4% of the population to  29 million people or 9.1%. Another way the changes are helping lower income households is the decline of the official poverty rate to 13.5% in 2015 by 1.2 percentage points from 14.8% in 2014. Through a series of small incremental steps the path is being set for a recovery of household incomes for the middle class and working class. A bright spot is that the improvement has affected all age groups, household types, regions and ethnic groups, though among full time workers women did better than men. In this recession older white men have had more difficulties getting back into the workforce. This is reflected in the political scene in 2015-2016 for the election season. ...

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....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out the gains on three fronts evident from the Census Bureau report of 5.2% gain in median income of households in the U.S. He says the first is the growth in incomes of ordinary working class and middle class families, second the large decline in the poverty rate, and third the further rise in insurance coverage in 2015 for people without health insurance. He points to the steady efforts of the Obama administration to improve lives of ordinary families as working based on the Census report though results have taken time, and could have been better. The Stimulus, says Krugman could have been larger following the blow of the 2009 financial crisis and increased unemployment at the time. Janet Yellen at the inequality conference of the Boston Fed in 2014 pointed out the problems of 62 million households having net worth of about $10,000, and why this was running against the American idea of a better life for all Americans. In that sense the Census report is a movement in the right direction but a lot remains to be done.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the crude rhetoric at Donald Trump rallies, and use of coarse language, according to the NYT. Working class and older Americans show their anger at a system that appears to have left them behind with slogans, stickers, T-Shirts. The idea of the wall figures in much of this and shows that the wall has become not jut about Mexico but a metaphor that captures this anger, that reflects this anger. Another aspect of the 2016 campaign is that those most vulnerable and most in need of help have not sought the comfort of knowing about programs to improve middle class and working class wages, incomes, to build infrastructure, create jobs, stop companies from shifting jobs overseas, plans for improving accesss to health care and education, to ask for specifics and delivery. This is the supreme irony of the 2016 election campaign that not enough attention is going to what will be done for the middle and working class, and what specifics will be delivered, in what time frame- which is essential for restoring the condition of the American middle and working class to where it was in the 2 decades after the Second World War. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Ben Inker of Grantham Mayo sees profitability at U.S. companies at a high because of savings in labor costs while consumption has not declined because of government transfer payments and fiscal policy. He sees profits of U.S. companies declining in 2012-2013. This makes the U.S. stocks less likely to perform well in the future, especially the stocks outside of the blue chips which he sees as highly overvalued. A better choice in his view is in Europe and Japan which are undervalued. His funds have 39% in U.S. stocks and most of it in blue chip stocks. His view is that interest rate policy will not have a large effect as the changes will be very gradual, and going from zero percent interest rates to one percent interest rates will not lead to much change in economic activity. From his point of view the largest risk is in shrinking of profits at U.S. companies as the deficit comes down, because today workers are able to maintain consumption because of fiscal policy and companies are able to cut costs. In Europe the austerity cuts are being taken seriously and this will impact profits, so the U.S. will look better in 2012. But value will prevail in the long run as European and Japanese stocks are undervalued and the U.S runup leaves stocks overvalued in terms of future stream of profits....

LyrArc Article Gist
David Kostin, Goldman Sach's U.S. equity strategist and his prediction of the S&P 500 at 1250 at the end of 2012. The S&P was at 1421 on April 1, 2012, the highest it has been since May 20, 2008. In his research note Kostin says that over the longer term the stock market will offer opportunities after a more normal growth environment is reestablished. This is similiar to the view held by John Bogle, founder of Vanguard. For the short term- the 2012-2013 time frame Kostin sees tactical risks, and results below average. The reason he gives is low economic growth and the large degree of uncertainty. The situation in Europe shows slowing to no growth and more deficit problems, and the sanctions on Iran pose risks for oil prices.

LyrArc Article Gist
Van Dam says its not that great being a worker in the U.S. because it is hard for the unemployed resulting from competing with workers in other countries with lower wages, and for those who are unemployed harder because worker collective bargaining is weakened over 3 decades. He cites a 296 page OECD report showing very little government support for unemployed and at risk American workers. It says this has contributed to higher income inequality and larger share of lower income people than almost any other advanced a nation. Only Spain and Greece are shown as having more households earning less than half the median income- showing large numbers of people are poor or close to being poor. In the U.S. an average of 1 in 5 lose their jobs each year, and 23% of workers 15 to 64 are in their job less than a year in 2016. The job churn hurts workers because of firing and layoffs being frequent, more than is healthy for a economy. The U.S. and Mexico are the only two countries not requiring advance notice before firings. And fewer than half of workers find a job within a year in the U.S. Two in three families with a displaced worker fall in poverty for some time. Unemployed workers with typically 26 weeks support get less support than any other country in the study. Only 12% of workers in U.S. are covered by collective bargaining. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Von Mark Schieritz of Germany's Zeit Online describes the changes underway following the election campaigns in the U.S., and France, and the Brexit vote in Britain, all signalling the discontent of people left behind by the tech, capitalism, trade and globalization changes of the last two decades. The appeal of one time fringe politicians using racist slogans and divisive rhetoric to appeal to those left behind, appealing to people lacking intergenerational mobility, and without much hope for a better future, is a serious concern. People who are gullible enough, lack college education, or racially isolated so that they are not likely to look carefully at what is being offered in terms of programs and change of competing parties, and likely to overlook the hard and difficult road for corrective course of action, because of anger and pentup fears. Schieritz cites as part of this change the unanimously approved conclusion in its final declaration at the G-20 meeting in Chengdu, China- "The benefits of growth need to be shared more broadly within and among countries to promote inclusiveness." Yet this can be a sort of "too little, too late."  Bankers who are cited in an email going around Wall Street lack credibility with groups on Main Street, to people adversely affected by tech, trade and globalization changes that have been persistently ignored for over a decade, close to two decades. More convincing is the tone of Theresa May, the British prime minister's first statement outside 10 Downing Street- who spoke of the "burning injustices" and her determination to make this a top priority of her government. Still more convincing are the programs to invest $275 billion over 10 years in infrastructure put forward by the leading candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, to provide easier access to public universities and colleges to those left behind, as a sure way to create new jobs and address intergenerational mobility. In fact every leading candidate had made the loss of upward mobility their central plank already in 2015, long before Trump and Sanders started their campaign. The real hope lies in western leaders Merkel, May, and Clinton, all keenly aware students of changes, all women by the way who have sensed the injustice and have the ability to come up with something new and promising for the future, after learning the lessons of the past. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Lawrence Katz, Harvard labor economist, talks to Friedman about the jobs crisis in the U.S.. Katz identifies three jobs crises occurring at the same time today. One is the drop in the demand for goods and services that resulted from the longer term effects of the financial crisis of 2008, with rising foreclosures, weak housing markets, bad debt on the balance sheets of banks, and interest rates at close to zero reducing the scope of action by the Federal Reserve bank. The second, is the widespread long term unemployment with workers dropping out of the labor market. The third, is the nature of new factories and hiring. Work in new factories is done through increased automation, information technology and fewer workers. As a result job creation is a fraction of what it was in the past. Not mentioned here is the shrinking of the public sector under the strain of budget deficits for local, state and federal government. This leads to the question of how America will create jobs in the future. Katz believes the answer is creating more "hubs," networked urban areas like Austin, Silicon Valley, and Raleigh-Durham, by bringing together universities, high-tech manufacturers, software providers, and startup companies, to cooperate in creating new products that enhance people's lives worldwide. This has to be done by the private sector and government working together to build the infrastructure and make the investments in education, training of workers, and equipment for new job creation....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Federal Reserve Open Market Commitee takes a position of pause and wait as it decides in March 2012 not to take any new further bond buying stimulus measures. There is uncertainty in equity markets about the effect this will have on equity prices. During the last two pauses in 2010 and 2011 the equity markets experienced downturns after withdrawal of bond buying measures by the Fed, leading to Fed action with QE 1 and QE 2 followed by a surge in equity prices and the S&P at over 1400. At the peak during the 2001 and 2008 dot-com and housing propelled booms the S&P reached over 1500. At this rate the curve for U.S. equity prices for the 2008-2012 period resembles a repeat of a narrow steep V shaped curve with only a 7% climb in April 2012 needed to reach the 1500 point in the S&P 500 average at which the previous two booms in prices ended up in a bust. John Taylor, Stanford economist, in a separate op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2012, called for a change in the mandate of the U.S. Federal Reserve for a more rule based policy because of the dangers of repeated boom and bust periods in the U.S. economy as a result of ultra loose monetary policies. The problem at this point in April 2012 is that profits of companies are not expected by analysts to come in strongly in the second quarter, with a slightly improving unemployment picture, expected upward pressures on oil prices from the Iranian situation, eurozone debt problems in Spain and Italy, and slowing growth in China, India and Brazil. These fundamentals do not support an S&P at the levels seen during the height of the last two booms of 2000-2001 and 2007-2008....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the U.S. Federal Reserve's forecasts in March 2012 show the U.S. will experience low inflation and high unemployment for many years. These forecasts are in sharp contrast to the expectations in the equity markets based on an uptick for a couple of months of unemployment numbers. The Fed's own statements suggest the improvement in hiring may be temporary and a response to the overreaction in hiring in 2009-2010 to the financial crisis, and not a lasting improvement. The Fed pointed out that the long term unemployed are at about 40% of the total unemployed and the share of the population that is working in March 2012 has barely budged from 58% in 2009.

LyrArc Article Gist
A new study by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation shows partisan politics will affect the new president in the U.S. in 2013, to the point of making it difficult to govern.