Sunday, June 23, 2013

U.S. tax system targets workers

Everybody in America -- but especially anti-tax conservatives -- needs to read and understand this:

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing. At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side. And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

Lord and Pizzigati also note what I've been saying for a while now, that redistribution of wealth is alive and well in America -- but from the bottom-up, from workers to shareholders and managers -- not from the rich down to lazy welfare moochers:

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.


By Bob Lord and Sam Pizzigati
June 20, 2013 | Los Angeles Times

Imagine a society with two tax systems. One taxes the wealth people have accumulated. The other taxes the labor people perform. This society seems to be getting along well enough, raising enough tax revenue to finance the public goods and services that voters have told lawmakers they want to see supported.

Now imagine that lawmakers have decided to cut the tax rates on wealth and raise them on labor. At the same time, the amount of wealth subject to the lower tax rates is rising as income from labor is shrinking.

That society, we would agree, is asking for trouble. In real life, would any society choose to take such an unsustainable course? One already has — the United States since 1980.

In America today, virtually all the taxes that local, state and federal governments levy can be classified as either wealth-based or labor-based.

The wealth-based taxes include the state and local property taxes we pay on an annual basis and the one-time taxes on large inheritances and estates. Wealth-based taxes also include taxes on the income people get from holding wealth — dividends and interest, for instance — and the capital gains income from buying and selling assets. Throw in the corporate income tax here, too.

Labor-based taxes obviously cover the levies paid on the income we earn from the work we do. These include personal income taxes and the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.

These labor-based taxes also include the more difficult to categorize sales and sin taxes. The lion's share of the revenue raised from these taxes, we would argue, comes from people spending their labor-based income on basic living expenses or, in the case of sin taxes, on cigarettes and alcohol.

What has happened to the rates in these two tax systems?

Over the last three decades, the rates for wealth-based taxes have been plummeting.  In 2011, the effective corporate income tax rate dropped to a 40-year low of 12.1%. The top federal estate tax rate has sunk from 70% to 40% since 1981. Estate-tax avoidance strategies have brought the actual rate paid on large estates down to less than half that. Many states have abandoned the state inheritance tax altogether.

The tax rate on capital gains did recently increase at the federal level, but the long-term trend has been downward, and the rate of tax on dividends has fallen dramatically, from 70% in 1980 to 20% today. Finally, beginning with the passage of California's Proposition 13 in 1978, average property tax rates nationwide have declined sharply.

Meanwhile, the rates for labor-based taxes, taken together, have increased.  Average Americans do pay federal income taxes at a slightly lower rate than 30 years ago. But the effective payroll tax rate has increased sharply, as the ceiling on wages subject to Social Security taxes has risen and the ceiling on wages subject to Medicare taxes has been removed entirely.

On top of that, sales taxes have also increased steadily, as have sin taxes.

The two tax systems, however, don't operate on a totally separate basis. The money that makes up the base in one system can migrate to the other. Over the last three decades or so, the available tax base from our labor-based tax system has been migrating to the wealth-based tax system.

Here's how. Until around 1980, wages kept pace with gains in productivity. Since then, productivity has continued to increase while wages have stagnated. The result? The allocation of income between labor and wealth has shifted, with more dollars going toward higher corporate profits, dividends and capital gains than toward wages. Tax rates are shrinking for booming profits, while rising for shrinking wages.

But that's not the worst of it. Tax rates in the wealth-based tax system aren't just decreasing. An increasingly higher share of the dollars in that system escape taxation entirely.

This growing exempt pool of wealth includes pension plans, IRAs, 401(k) plans, life insurance and annuity policies, municipal bond portfolios and funds held offshore. Most of this wealth sits in the portfolios of the richest families. Over recent decades, this tax-exempt chunk of American wealth has grown faster than our aggregate wealth — about $20 trillion, not including what may be as much as $10 trillion in wealth parked in offshore tax havens.

In the estate tax arena, it's the same dynamic. The exemption from estate tax has swelled. In 1981, the first $175,625 of the estate an affluent American left behind faced no estate tax. Today, the first $5,250,000 is exempt. And with the help of a decent estate planner, that exemption can be leveraged into a much higher number.

To sum up: The overall rate for wealth-based taxes has been decreasing while the overall rate for labor-based taxes has been increasing.  At the same time, the potential base for labor-based taxes is migrating to the wealth-based tax side.  And an ever-increasing portion of that potential base for wealth-based taxes faces no tax at all.

This is unsustainable.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Socialismo esporte brasileiro chama de 1 milhão às ruas

(I love Google Translate).

A million protesters in the streets in more than 80 cites -- wow!  If only apathetic Americans could get off their asses like that!

It just goes to show that sports socialism and the corrupt cronyism that goes with it are not only American phenomena.  Just like in the U.S., the same governments that can't find money to fund public schools and infrastructure somehow manage to find all kinds of creative ways to build shining new stadiums that sit empty in prime urban real estate most of the year, whether it's through tax hikes, fee hikes, cuts to municipal services, municipal bonds, or public-private partnerships where businesses make off with public goods.  

UPDATE (06.26.2013):  Some guy named Marty Kaplan at HuffPo shares my envy of Brazil's protests: "Let's Be Brazil."  


By Jonathan Watts
June 21, 2013  | Guardian

How FISA law became unconstitutional

One terrorist act and one amendment at a time, that's how.  Argues law professor Laura Donahue:

To the extent that the FISC sanctioned PRISM, it may be consistent with the law. But it is disingenuous to suggest that millions of Americans’ e-mails, photographs and documents are “incidental” to an investigation targeting foreigners overseas.

The telephony metadata program raises similar concerns. FISA did not originally envision the government accessing records. Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Congress allowed applications for obtaining records from certain kinds of businesses. In 2001, lawmakers further expanded FISA to give the government access to any business or personal records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government no longer has to prove that the target is a foreign power. It need only state that the records are sought as part of an investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence.

This means that FISA can now be used to gather records concerning individuals who are neither the target of any investigation nor an agent of a foreign power. Entire databases — such as telephony metadata — can be obtained, as long as an authorized investigation exists.

President Obama is taking a lot of heat right now for the NSA's spying on us and rightly so.  But let's not let Congress off the hook.  They passed these laws.  They could pass a law to outlaw PRISM tomorrow, if they wanted to.  


By Laura K. Donohue
June 21, 2013 | Washington Post

Friday, June 21, 2013

Scalia: Our 'morphing' undead Constitution

Is it time to panic, folks?  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has repeatedly warned us that we have a zombie Constitution that is "dead, dead, dead."  He also warned us that it is "morphing."

We've all seen this happen in the movies and games like Resident Evil.  We know what we need to do.  We have no choice but to shoot our mutating, undead Constitution in the head.  

As zombie movies have taught us, it's only appropriate that a loved one pulls the trigger.  And nobody loves the Constitution like Scalia.  It's times like this when I thank God for the 2nd Amendment!


Grayson: 'We don't defend our freedom by giving it away'

posted by Alan Grayson
June 21, 2013 | Democratic Underground

This past week, controversy raged over the revelation that under the guise of "foreign surveillance," the Defense Department is obtaining information about every telephone call in America.  As if that weren't enough, DoD also is collecting information on e-mails, videos, stored data, log-ins, etc., from Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Yahoo, YouTube, AOL and Skype.  Congressman Alan Grayson took to the airwaves to condemn that invasion of our privacy, and that trampling on the Fourth Amendment, in this interview on national TV:

Thom Hartmann: In the best of the rest of the news, yesterday the House Committee on Rules blocked an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have drastically cut back the NSA's ability to collect data on American citizens. An amendment was proposed by Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida. It would have prohibited the Defense Department from collecting information on U.S. citizens without probable cause of a terrorism or criminal offense. Congressman Grayson's amendment, of course, comes on the heels of reports that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the telephone records and internet information of U.S. citizens. So while the House Rules Committee may have rejected the Congressman's amendment, what else can be done now to stop the national security state from invading the privacy of U.S. citizens? Joining me now for more on that is Congressman Alan Grayson, representing Florida's 9th district. Congressman, welcome. 

Congressman Alan Grayson: Thank you. 

Thom: Or welcome back. First of all, I'm rather astounded by the Rules Committee knocking down your amendment, which seems like it echoes the Fourth Amendment. 

Alan: Well the Rules Committee consists of nine Republicans and four Democrats. But I think that there are Members of Congress even now who aren't aware of the severity of this problem. It's been a week since we learned that every single call that Verizon carries – Verizon being the largest cell phone carrier in the United States -- every single call has call details – who is calling whom, when they're talking, how long they're talking – and that's all given to the Department of Defense. Every single call. Not only that, but there's no reason to think that if Verizon's doing this, that AT&T is not doing it. So we have to assume that every call that we make in America – even local calls, even calls to your grandmother – all those calls are being handed over to the government, in terms of the call details. In addition to that, the PowerPoint presentation internal to the NSA that was also leaked, at the same time, indicates that the NSA, according to that information, can pull from AOL servers, from Microsoft servers, from Google servers, from virtually every single Internet provider in the country, information that hosts e-mails, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, which is basically the contents of telephone calls), and a whole host of other information that people regard as personal. Now, that's where we are right now. I think many Members of Congress are not aware of that. I think many members of your audience were not aware of the fact that the government's getting information on every single call they make. Now the question is, "What do we do about it?" The Rules Committee decided to do nothing. The Republicans outnumber the Democrats nine to four on the Rules Committee, so that doesn't surprise me. 

Thom: But the Fourth Amendment is pretty unambiguous. I mean basically we're supposed to be secure in our persons, papers, home, property, unless somebody goes before a judge and swears under oath that they have reason to believe – you know, probable cause to believe – that a crime is being committed.  Then the judge issues a very specific warrant defining the place and things to be seized, or persons to be – you know I'm badly paraphrasing the Fourth Amendment, but you know it. How is it that this is partisan? 

Alan: Well, what relying on is a decision from something like thirty or forty years ago that indicated that "pen register" information, the calling record of one person, could be released without any Fourth Amendment violation by the government, because said that pen register information was not something that the Fourth Amendment constrained. Now, what they've decided is that because they could do it to one person, they can do it to every person. The document that was leaked, the court order that was leaked, is in fact a court order to Verizon that claims to be based upon applicable law. It happens to be signed by a right-wing judge who also declared that Obamacare was unconstitutional. But leaving that aside, what the agency is doing is it's purporting to rely upon this ancient string of irrelevant legal applications, in order to spy on every one of us. 

Thom:  I just said, "How could this be partisan?" You were talking about the Republicans on the committee blocking this.  You're basically bringing the Fourth Amendment into this. And yet it's a democratic administration that's doing it. The NSA is part of the Department of Defense, which is part of the Obama Administration. Are you hearing anything from the Obama Administration that they might be having second thoughts about what they're doing? 

Alan:  Well, the NSA, DoD, and other figures are part of the Administration .  Not the President himself, though, yet. Other figures have launched a vigorous defense of this practice, saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with the Department of Defense getting telephone records about every single human being in America. Bear in mind that we've had a law going back to the 1870s, called the Posse Comitatus Act, that prevents DoD from having any operations in the United States. Now it turns out that DoD is getting all records of all of our telephone calls, and yet somehow that's defensible. You're right -- this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all, because we have Republicans who are getting their telephone records turned over, Democrats, everyone. And therefore everyone should be up in arms. We had over 10,000 people go to our website our bill . The website is MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. Ten thousand people came to the website, and became citizen co-sponsors of my bill, in the first 24 hours. Eventually, sooner or later, we're going to see that bill heard. 

Thom: That's marvelous. MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com is the website. Congressman, we have just about a minute left. I'm curious, your thoughts on where we're going to go from here? What's next? 

Alan:  What's next is for people who respect privacy, people who respect liberty, people who respect freedom, to state, clearly, that we don't protect our freedom by giving it away. There has to be a constant, consistent effort. There certainly will be on my part.  I hope there'll be the same on the part of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others, to make sure that we put an end to this pernicious practice, and protect our cherished freedom. 

Thom: But how do you respond to people who say, "But oh, I'm so afraid of terrorists"? 

Alan: Oh look, you know. If somebody can explain to me how tapping your phone will prevent terrorism, Thom, then at that point I'll start to be convinced. 

Thom:  Ok, I got it, and totally agree with you. Once again, the website was – 

Alan: MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. 

Thom: MindYourOwnBusinessAct.com. Congressman Alan Grayson, great work. 

Alan: Thank you. 

Thom: Thank you so much for being with us today.