The Last Of The Millenniums

Just because it always has been, doesn't mean it always will be

Archive for the day “April 29, 2012”

Time to be taxed

BY DANIEL TAIBLESON | APRIL 27, 2012 6:30 AM

The beating heart of modern Republican rhetoric is the argument that there is nothing more dangerous than a tax increase.

This thinking, however rhetorically effective, is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, it has narrowed the policy options available to our elected officials to the point that it risks bringing up the kind of economic crises they purport to be circumventing by fighting tax increases.

Counter to what Republicans argue, we can address debts and deficits by increase tax rates on high-income households, dividends, and capital gains without upending the U.S. economy.

To be sure, Republicans are not completely wrong: Austerity policies that intentionally reduce government spending, cut government benefits, and increase taxes, except in the rarest of cases, risk imparting real measurable economic harm.

One need only look at the current state of the Britain’s economy to see that.

Since Britain’s Conservative-led government imposed a slew of austerity policies in the name of debt reduction, Britain’s economy has formally fallen back into recession — GDP shrank by 0.2 percent in the final quarter of last year, according to the Office for National Statistics.

At some point however, some level of austerity becomes necessary. Ideally this would be done in a time of growth, when the negative economic blow would be softened by otherwise strong growth, but sometimes austerity becomes necessary even in tough economic times.

The question then becomes: How do we reduce debts and deficits while minimizing the human and economic costs of austerity?

Republicans would say the answer is to cut government spending to avoid tax increases at all costs. A 2010 analysis written by a team of professors from the University of Nebraska, the University of Michigan, and the University of California-Berkeley, differs in its conclusions.

The team of scholars found that marginal tax rates can be raised on high-income households without imposing much, if any, economic harm. The researchers found that high-income individuals, in the aggregate, do not withdraw from economic activity when marginal rates increase — counter to the arguments of Republicans and Ayn Rand fans.

They found that raising marginal tax rates on high-income households can be done without hurting small businesses. This is in part because only 2.5 percent of all small businesses fall within the top income brackets. But, even for that 2.5 percent, because they can deduct investments in full, they can pretty much avoid feeling most changes in marginal tax rates.

Perhaps most importantly, they found that preposterously low capital gains and dividends rates do not spur investments in new ventures — for example, entrepreneurship.

As an alternative to tax increases, Republicans have pushed for cuts in highway funding, unemployment insurance, food assistance for the poor, and a slew of other government programs. The problem with this approach is that these kind of programs are proven to have huge positive economic effects, according to Mark Zandi, an economist who testified before the House Budget Committee in 2010.

Research and history inform us that we can increase taxes in a targeted and thoughtful way without realizing high economic costs. Furthermore, they inform us that kind of program cuts proposed by Republicans risk realizing high economic and human costs.

Austerity is a dangerous game. But, we cannot avoid it forever: This is why it should be approached in a calculated fashion — relying on evidence and not ideology as a guide.

Let’s start there and see where it takes us before we consider the far more dangerous kinds of programs proposed by Republicans.

——————————————————————————–

This is really the only alternative to slowing the influence peddling.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE

Free Speech for People has filed a brief in the Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, a case that challenges Citizens United v. FEC and raises the issue of whether the State of Montana can prohibit election spending by corporations. The people of Montana enacted the corporate spending restriction by referendum in 1912. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law in December, notwithstanding Citizens United, and a corporate lobbying/spending entity has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Free Speech for People brief, joined by the American Sustainable Business Council, the American Independent Business Alliance, and a Montana business corporation, is here.  Free Speech for People’s press release is here, and below.

FREE SPEECH FOR PEOPLE AND BUSINESS GROUPS URGE US SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE CITIZENS UNITED 

MONTANA’S BAN ON CORPORATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS PRESENTS
FIRST DIRECT CHALLENGE TO 2010 RULING
 
Amicus Brief Filed Before the Supreme Court 

View original post 765 more words

Post Navigation