Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

Saturday, September 28, 2019

They Wouldn't Leave

givemewanderlust asked:
"Hi! Question! I was talking to my boyfriend about taxing billionaires and Warren’s tax plan, etc. and his question was “why would they stay here if they’re going to lose that much money?” I’m wondering what you’d say to that argument? Because I was kinda stuck. Thank you in advance!"
odinsblog answered
"They wouldn’t leave. It’s a bluff that no one has called, iMho. Think about it: America is where a shit ton of money is because we have so many markets that are integral to the world market. The US dollar is still the defacto currency of the world. If congress did it right, with no loopholes—I know, that’s a big if—but if they did it right, and threatened to take away access to the US markets, and denied said billionaires the ability to conduct business in the US, they couldn’t leave. 
What kind of greedy snot avoids paying their fair share of taxes just because they’re going to lose such an infinitesimally small portion of their wealth that even their grandchildren’s great-grandchildren would still be millionaires?
America built the interstate highway and other crucial infrastructure when the tax rate was a whopping 91 percent. I’m not saying we need to go that high again, but we aren’t going to be able to repair our infrastructure by making poor people and middle class people pay higher taxes. And someone has got to pay, so it might as well be the privileged 1%. 
Remember: if the tax laws were written to say, “we are going to tax millionaires and billionaires,” the tax is on every dollar AFTER a certain amount. For example, a 51 percent tax on $500,000 means that the 51 percent rate doesn’t kick in until that person makes $500,001. Every dollar AFTER $500,000 would be taxed at the 51 percent tax rate. If someone made “only” $499,000 a year, then they wouldn’t get hit with a 51 percent tax rate. If they made $500,000 they still wouldn’t get hit with the 51 percent tax rate. It’s not until they exceeded $500,000 that the tax rate kicks in – and then it only kicks in on the dollars that go OVER $500,000.
I think that’s the part everyone misses, right? So if I made $500,002 (that’s five hundred thousand + two dollars), then only that extra two dollars is taxed at the rate of 51 percent.
Anyway, it’s a bluff. And we need to call it. But we gotta do it the right way and make it painful for them." 

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Robert Reich: America’s Biggest Economic Problem Isn’t China

Xi Jinping might possibly agree this weekend when he meets Donald Trump on further steps to bring down China’s trade imbalance with the US, giving Trump a face-saving way of ending his trade war.
But Xi won’t agree to change China’s economic system. Why should he?
The American economic system is focused on maximizing shareholder returns. And it’s achieving that goal. Last Friday, the S&P 500 notched a new all-time high.
But average Americans have seen no significant gains in their incomes for four decades, adjusted for inflation.
China’s economic system, by contrast, is focused on maximizing China. And it’s achieving that goal. 
Forty years ago China was still backward and agrarian. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy, home to the world’s biggest auto industry and some of the world’s most powerful technology companies. Over the last four decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty.
The two systems are fundamentally different.
At the core of the American system are 500 giant companies headquartered in the US but making, buying and selling things all over the world. Half of their employees are non-American, located outside the US. A third of their shareholders are non-American.
These giant corporations have no particular allegiance to America. Their only allegiance and responsibility is to their shareholders.
They’ll do whatever is necessary to get their share prices as high as possible – including keeping wages down, fighting unions, reclassifying employees as independent contractors, outsourcing anywhere around world where parts are cheapest, shifting their profits around the world wherever taxes are lowest, and paying their top CEOs ludicrous sums.
At the core of China’s economy, by contrast, are state-owned companies that borrow from state banks at artificially low rates. These state firms balance the ups and downs of the economy, spending more when private companies are reluctant to do so.
China’s core planners and state-owned companies will do whatever is necessary both to improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy.
Trump thinks that’s unfair. But it works. Since 1978, the Chinese economy has grown by an average of more than 9% per year. Growth has slowed recently, and American tariffs could bring it down to 6% or 7%, but that’s still faster than almost any other economy in the world, including the US.
The American system relies on taxes, subsidies and regulations to coax corporations to act in the interest of the American public. But these levers have proven weak relative to the overriding corporate goal of maximizing shareholder returns.
Last week, for example, Walmart, American’s largest employer, announced it would lay off 570 employees despite taking home more than $2bn courtesy of Trump and the Republican corporate tax cuts. Last year, the company closed dozens of Sam’s Club stores, leaving thousands of Americans out of work.
At the same time, Walmart has plowed more than $20 billion into buying back shares of its own stock, which boosts the pay of Walmart executives and enriches wealthy investors but does nothing for the economy.
It should be noted that Walmart is a global company, not adverse to bribing foreign officials to get its way. Last Thursday it agreed to pay $282m to settle federal allegations of overseas corruption, including channeling more than $500,000 to an intermediary in Brazil known as a “sorceress” for her ability to make construction permit problems disappear.
The Trump tax cut did squat for jobs and wages but did nicely for corporate executives and big investors. Instead of reinvesting the savings into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies used it to buy back stock.
But wait. America is a democracy and China is a dictatorship, right?
True, but most Americans have little or no influence on public policy – which is why the Trump tax cut did so little for them.
That’s the conclusion of professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues before Congress and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.
Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations, those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

Don’t blame American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.
But because of their dominance in American politics and their commitment to share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans, it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness.
I’m not suggesting we emulate the Chinese economic system. I am suggesting that we not be smug about the American economic system.
Instead of trying to get China to change, we should lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American policy.
China isn’t the reason half of America hasn’t had a raise in four decades. The simple fact is Americans cannot thrive within a system run largely by big American corporations, organized to boost their share prices but not boost Americans.

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Unions: A tumblr Grab

Unions are why you have 5 day, 40 hour full-time work weeks. Unions are why they have to pay you in actual dollars instead of “company credits” that you can only spend at the company-owned stores. Unions are why there are f-- fire exits at your place of work. Unions are why it’s not okay for your supermarket ground beef to be any percentage human.
You think your company pays you out of the goodness of their hearts? Or even out of “market pressure?” The “job market” is a myth perpetuated by the capitalists. Corporations would pay you nothing if they could get away with it. And you argue “oh, but if they paid me nothing I’d just go to another one.” Wrong. Because to maximize profits, they all want to pay you nothing. Corporations exist to maximize profits while reducing risk for investors. It’s part of their entire function to find ways to cut costs as much as possible, and that includes finding ways to pay you nothing.
Unions are your defense against that. You think all a union does is strike? If you pay union dues, a lot of that is spent on lobbyists in various governments reminding your lawmakers that you have rights as a living human being that a corporation should not be able to stomp all over. Unions hire lawyers so that if you’re fired for bullshit reasons, the union can stand up for you against your boss. They’re called unions because workers are uniting to pool resources so that they can stand up to these corporate overlords with more money than God. Unions exist because you might not have the words, resources, or time to fight workplace injustices all by yourself. That’s the whole fucking point.
And if a business shuts down because a union is striking, it’s because the business was abusing people and didn’t deserve to be in business anyway. Don’t make excuses for the corporations. They already have trillions of dollars and a couple million lawyers to do that for themselves. They don’t need your help.
All that and also, the idea that unions go to war whenever anything is done to any employee even for good reason, is: a lie.
It’s the same PR scam as the “old lady sued McDonald’s for millions because her coffee was hot” shit.

The *company* is the one that wants you to believe, just because they said so, that the firing was legit and the employee’s fault. But guess what? Doesn’t happen. When someone is fired for refusing or failing to do their job, the other employees are *relieved*, because they’ve been the ones catching the consequences.
Look a bit closer, and you find the union’s strike responds to OUTRAGEOUS moves, either “she got cancer and it would have been a drag on the company to finance her sick leave”, or “we made profit this year but not enough to our liking, so we’re cutting off 10% of the workers to pocket more."