Since corporate profits keep going up- showing that corporations are benefiting from the many services that our government offers- the fact that corporate tax revenue is decreasing seems relevant and necessary to our political discussions.
Does the very idea of those discussions happening strike anyone else as extremely unlikely?
Apparently so. (Note the third panel especially)
Chart found through Wonkwire. Comic through Political Irony.
It will surprise nobody to hear that some state budgets have structural deficits.
But solutions may be easier to find than our political discussion indicates. Economist have a striking degree of agreement on some issues that are being heatedly debated by politicians. 40 economists surveyed – including Democrats, Republicans and others- gave answers to public economic policy questions and the results of two questions are as follows:
92% agreement that the stimulus reduced the jobless rate
0% thought that cutting taxes from current levels would create jobs.
If our political system had more respect for facts, perhaps we’d already be a great deal closer to being out of this recession with countercyclical fiscal policy, along with paying attention to what types of stimulus has the greatest impact.
As is, maybe we can pay attention in time to make use of the fact that more stimulus could still help.
The Republican nominee- Willard Mitt Romney- has yet to release his tax returns, but has given two details about his tax plan. He promises to reduce the deficit, but also to cut marginal tax rates by 20% across the board.
When the nonpartisan group Tax Policy Center (whose work was previously described by the Romney campaign as “objective, third-party analysis”) conducted analysis of Romney’s tax policy while giving it the benefit of every doubt and implausibly favorable conditions, they found that his tax policy was “mathematically impossible” without tax increases on the middle class.
Now that it objects to the Tax Policy Center’s conclusion, the Romney campaign is describing their work as “just another biased study from a former Obama staffer.”
The idea of austerity as a solution to recessions seems more reasonable as a form of penance to supernatural forces- the hand of the invisible market, perhaps- than it seems as economic policy.
It couldn’t possibly have been the work of economists, right?
Comic found at Political Irony.
Mitt Romney was asked by ABC News if there was ever any year when he paid lower than a 13.9% effective tax rate as his 2010 tax returns show.
Said Romney: “I haven’t calculated that. I’m happy to go back and look but my view is I’ve paid all the taxes required by law.”
However, when pressed if he would get back to the interviewer, Romney wouldn’t directly answer the question.
There are a few reason why this matters:
One is that Romney is trying to portray himself as an economic policy wonk: the numbers guy. If he honestly doesn’t know if he has ever paid less than what he paid on the one tax return he release, that undermines his own narrative. On the other hand, he might know that he did pay less than 13.1%- and how much less- and he is dishonestly guarding that fact, because he knows it won’t play well with people making less than one hundredth what he makes and who pay a higher tax rate than he does.
Second is that Romney- while behaving as though his taxes are nobody’s business- is arguing for a tax plan that harms 95% of Americans– but not on people at the top. No, the top few- including Romney- are the ones he wants to give tax breaks. Of course, he already gets generous tax breaks, such as a tax deduction of $129,697 because of having large amounts of money overseas.
And third is this strange idea that capital should be taxed less than labor. Shouldn’t work be encouraged? After all, capital without labor fills storage rooms, gathers dust in warehouses or rots on the vine. And yet Romney’s income from owning capital is taxed less than income that Americans get from doing work.
The GOP is proposing a number of bills to help their special interest groups make more money and calling these “Job” bills. These bills include environmental deregulation which would result in increased illness- and medical costs- and death.
At the same time, the GOP opposes a bill which would eliminate tax breaks for outsourcers.
Romney says he left Bain Capital in 1999, and in not responsible for outsourcing that Bain orchestrated from 1999-2002. However, Securities and Exchange Commission documents signed by Romney and filed by Bain Capital show that he was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
If that paperwork is a lie, signing it was a felony.
If that paperwork is true, he is an outsourcer.
Either way, he is a liar: either he lied when he filled out the paperwork, or he lied to cover his outsourcing.
This, in addition to the ridiculousness of saying he was not responsible for a company he owned, whole and entire, and the fact that he was being paid $100,000 per year as its executive and claims that he did nothing to earn that money- but apparently thought it was ethical to be paid $100,000 to do nothing.
So, which is it, outsourcer or felon? The liar part is already proven.
For those who don’t think that Keynesian economic policy works to lower unemployment, consider that most of the Democratic Presidents believe it does:
David's Slingshot 