Bob Lord Posted by Bob Lord This piece in today's New York Times takes "too big to fail" to its disgusting extreme. What is clear from even a quick read was that, at a very minimum, in deciding whether indict HSBC for money laundering, the Justice Department considered the possibility that the indictment would cause HSBC to … Read more
Posted by Bob Lord
Laura Clawson at Daily Kos wrote an excellent post last Sunday on the unfairness of raising the Socail Security retirement age. Laura writes great stuff, and this post is no exception. Laura makes the point that the gains in life expectancies of 65 year-olds have been realized almost exclusively by those in the top half of the income distribution. She shows how life expectancies for 65 year-olds in the bottom half of the income distribution barely have budged since 1982, when the Social Security system last was overhauled. She explains well how the bodies of those who work in jobs requiring physical labor break down before their white collar counterparts. It's pathetic that such explanation is required, but in today's toxic political environment, clearly it is.
Laura nailed it in showing how the plan to raise the social security retirement age, a plan the Republicans love and too many Democrats are willing to accept, is mean spirited and callous. She left out the larcenous nature of the proposal, so I'll try to fill in. Essentially, the proposal seeks to pay for the extended social security benefits of those in the top half of the income distribution by cutting the benefits of those in the bottom half. In other words, the essence of the proposal is to steal from poorer retirees in order to stuff the pockets of their wealthier counterparts. Here are the details:
Posted by Bob Lord
Sunday's New York Times included an excellent piece by Louise Story on the devastating effect of tax and other giveaways by state and local government to big business.
I submitted an op-ed to the Times on how federal tax policy could be used to address this situation. They've passed on my piece, so I'm free to post it here, which I've done below. Interestingly, although they passed on my op-ed, the Times' editors used the same term I did, "Race to the Bottom," in an editorial on the same subject that appeared in yesterday's Times. Since I didn't coin that phrase, it's quite possible they came up with it independently, but, curiously, I didn't see the phrase used in Ms. Story's article.
Anyhow, here's my idea to address this very serious problem, which, by the way, impacts Arizona in a big way.
In her piece, The Empty Promise of Tax Incentives,
which appeared in Sunday’s Times, Louise Story did a good job of shining a
light on the “race to the bottom” among our nation’s states, towns and cities.
States compete with states and localities compete with localities to give giant
(or sometimes not so giant) corporations the best “deal” in order to entice
that corporation to locate a prized plant, distribution center or other
facility there. In the long run, the state and local governments drain their revenue
bases but accomplish little else, as the tax and other incentives they offer
are matched by their competitors, thereby canceling out the competitive
advantage they sought to achieve. The only winners are the corporations.
Posted by Bob Lord
The so-called fiscal cliff negotiations took a turn a few days ago when Speaker Boehner acknowledged that more tax revenue needed to come from those at the top, but took the position that the revenue must come from closing loopholes and capping deductions, not from raising rates. Democrats took the position that there is not enough revenue to be raised simply by closing loopholes and capping deductions, thus appearing to concede the point that limiting deductions is better policy than raising rates.
I beg to differ. Here are three situations that should be presented to Mr. Boehner as a preface to him defending his position:
Sam and Alice have taxable income of $250,000 per year, taking into account $20,000 that they give annually to Smile Train, a charity, which allows 80 kids born with cleft lip or cleft palate to have a chance at a normal life. John and Jane have taxable income of $366,666, with no charitable deductions. If we cap charitable deductions at $10,000 and leave rates at 2012 rates, Sam and Alice pay an extra $3,500 in 2013. If we allow the Bush tax cuts for those above $250,000 to expire but don't limit deductions, John and Jane pay the extra $3,500. Which is the better policy?
Posted by Bob Lord I'll be on KPHX 1480 this afternoon at 4:00 to talk about Tom Horne's saga, but if you're looking for great in-depth coverage of Horne, check out Steve Lemmons' piece in today's New Times. It's a great example of what investigative reporting is supposed to be all about.