Proposition D on Missouri’s 2018 midterm ballot asks voters whether to increase the tax on a gallon of gas. Should you vote for it?  Good question. If passed, Proposition D would raise the gas tax by a total of 10 cents, over four years. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it? After all, tax included, a gallon of gas in Missouri costs less than the same gallon in Illinois. You could argue that we’re getting a disproportionate bargain, and that voting yes would bring Missouri in line with neighboring states.

According to a summary published by the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, the current tax is 17 cents per gallon for both gasoline and diesel fuel, compared to Iowa’s 31 cents for gasoline and 32.5 cents for diesel fuel. The higher tax is estimated to generate at least $288 million annually for the Highway Patrol and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction.

I generally support tax increases, because it’s clear from the necessity of continuous cutbacks in services, Missouri government is not adequately funded. But then I started thinking about the regressive nature of sales taxes, and how this increase would put a disproportionate burden on people at lower income levels. And then I read an op-ed by former Missouri legislator Joan Bray. As someone who served 18 years on the Missouri legislature—with a major focus on transportation — Bray’s opinion carries weight. She is urging voters to say no to Prop D, saying that it contains a “poison pill that should outrage voters.”  Here’s her argument, as published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Just like the last two proposals for gas tax hikes, this increase would disproportionately help rural areas by funding only interstates and “letter highways.” Under the state constitution, gas tax goes solely to roads and bridges. None can be spent for urban or rural public transportation, passenger rail, ferries or bicycle paths. This proposal makes sure those modes continue to starve.

I had hoped that after the sound drubbing voters gave the last two gas tax hikes, the concrete cartel in Jefferson City would realize it should address the plight of all transportation modes. But it decided to obfuscate instead. It is promoting the tax for safety — funding the Highway Patrol — while shifting the patrol’s current appropriation to roads and bridges.

The bill’s poison pill defies responsible distribution of state revenue. It sets up the “Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund” into which the Legislature would appropriate general revenue. At last, the road and bridge guys could legally take from the pot of money already gutted by tax cuts to build their pet projects.

Who would lose from this sleight of hand? Anyone who relies on state funding for elementary and secondary schools, universities, mental health care, Medicaid, hospitals, criminal justice and prisons, environmental protections, and, not to forget, other modes of transportation without their own special tax like roads and bridges have.

Once again, myopic transportation planners in Jefferson City need to be denied. Locking the state into more funding that ignores the transportation needs of millions of urban, rural and poor Missourians seals the state’s fate in concrete.

Here’s the exact wording that you’ll see on the ballot under Missouri Proposition D. You decide. Full disclosure: Unfortunately, I voted absentee—and I voted yes—before Bray’s op-ed was published. Oops. Someone out there, please cancel me out with a no vote.

Shall Missouri law be amended to fund Missouri state law enforcement by increasing the motor fuel tax by two and one half cents per gallon annually for four years beginning July 1, 2019, exempt Special Olympic, Paralympic, and Olympic prizes from state taxes, and to establish the Emergency State Freight Bottleneck Fund? If passed, this measure will generate at least $288 million annually to the State Road Fund to provide for the funding of Missouri state law enforcement and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance.

The post Gas tax [Proposition D] on MO ballot: I voted yes before I knew what I was doing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The latest incarnation of a Republican tax “plan” includes repealing the estate tax. Republicans love to give it an evil connotation by referring to it as “the death tax.” They claim that they want to repeal it  to help “family farms and other family owned businesses.”

They are, of course, lying about all of it. The new tax “plan” is not a plan at all: It doesn’t reflect new thinking about taxation; it’s not based on a new theory of economics. It’s just a mishmash of giveaways to America’s richest people [who are also, not coincidentally, the biggest donors to Republican candidates], paid for by hurtful takeaways from lower-income taxpayers. If there’s a philosophy involved, it’s steal from the poor and give to the rich.

But the spin about this being a middle-class tax cut is just one of the big lies Republicans are peddling as they rush their tax bill through Congress, preferably under cover of darkness. The estate-tax gambit is also riddled with falsehoods.

Here’s what Republicans have said about the estate tax:

“For too long, this tax has threatened family-owned businesses—including women- and minority-owned businesses—from being passed down to their children and grandchildren,” says Representative Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. But he is wrong, and not by accident. He is spinning and lying as fast as he can.

So, who actually pays estate taxes? An editorial in today’s New York Times lists three categories of people:

1. The top 0.2 percent. Some 11,300 American estates—about 0.2 percent—are estimated to be subject to the estate tax this year [2017]. The top tenth of income earners pay nearly 90 percent of estate taxes collected, and about one fourth of that total is paid by the richest 0.1 percent…Today, an inheritance must be larger than $5.49 million for an individual, or $10.98 million for a couple for their heirs to be liable for any estate tax at all.

How does your estate measure up? Unless you are Steve Mnuchin, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, or

unless you hang out in those circles and share brokers, hedge fund managers and boardroom privileges with them, you’re probably not going to have to worry about your family suffering from an estate tax hit.

Please note, too, that as the New York Times editorial points out, while opponents of the tax say it taxes earnings twice, the fact is that more than half of the biggest estates consist of unrealized capital gains—like stocks that have appreciated without being sold—that have never been previously taxed.

How does that stack up with your stock portfolio? You’ve probably never sold a stock when its value went up, as a way to pay for college tuition or medical bills, right? You don’t need that money. You’ve just let it accumulate. Yeah, right.

2. A few dozen farmers, and even fewer minority business owners. About 80 family farmers or small-business people would be subject to the estate tax this year, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Got that? A whopping 80 family farmers or small-business people. Trump and Paul Ryan would like you to believe that there are “millions,” of struggling ranchers, mom-and-pop grocers and minority contractors who are being harmed by the estate tax. Not true. Obviously, they’re trying to tug at our heartstrings, as we imagine the owners of a neighborhood shop suffering under the burden of the estate tax; but they’re using that false imagery to sell a tax repeal that would benefit only the richest of the rich.

The Times continues:  “The biggest winners in an estate tax repeal wouldn’t be day-to-day people. They’d be people like Trump, unless they’re…”

3. Morons: “Only morons pay estate tax,” Gary Cohn, Trump’s chief economic adviser, told Senate Democrats, meaning, it was later explained,” rich people with rally bad tax planning.” Many of the very wealthy use loopholes, like trusts, to avoid paying inheritance tax.

Nice touch, Gary. Not only are you screwing regular people with many of the provisions of the proposed tax bill, you’re making fun of them at the same time.

The Times editorial concludes with these facts:

An estate tax repeal would provide a tax windfall of more than $3 million apiece for the top 0.2 percent of earners, and more than $20 million for the wealthiest Americans. It would cost $239 billion in revenue over a decade. It offers nothing for middle-class people.

The post The truth about the estate tax: You’re probably not going to have to pay it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Lester Holt, anchor of NBC Nightly News, could not appear to be more affable and concerned about delivering “straight news.” After Brian Williams bloviated and hyperbolized too much, Holt became a calming presence on the Nightly News.

His thirty-minute newscast distills to twenty minutes, after eliminating the commercials and self-promotions. We analyzed the newscast on the evening of Wednesday, April 26, 2017. There were eight stories with the first two being on the initial rollout of President Trump’s tax cut plan and the second being the renewed effort by House Republicans to pass a “repeal and replace” of Obamacare. The problem with what was delivered was not with what was said, but rather with what was not said. It’s not as if they used “alternative facts;” it’s that they did not put the facts that they cited into perspective.

Like all outlets, in fact like all human beings, NBC has a bias. Theirs is by not providing counter-arguments or equivalencies. The result is that they reinforce a conventional wisdom view of news events. By its very nature, this favors a conservative (or limited) way of looking at issues. Consequently, a progressive (and usually more thoughtful) way of looking at issues is often bypassed. Here are some examples from the April 26 Nightly News:

Lester Holt:

With great buildup, the White House announced a massive Tax Cut Plan today, what it’s calling the largest tax cut in history, one that could offer significant relief for a lot of Americans. not only families and individuals, but businesses too. The proposed cut on the corporate tax rate, the focus of a lot of the attention tonight because among the prime beneficiaries, businesses like President Trump’s. As they say, the devil is in the details, which appear to be fairly sparse at this point. NBC News National Correspondent, Peter Alexander, tells us more.

The problem:

While NBC says that the proposed tax cut could “offer significant relief for a lot of Americans,” they don’t point out that it could also provide significant burdens for a lot of Americans. Under the Trump proposal, federal income taxes would go down for millions of Americans. But what relief is that for the 45% of Americans who do not pay any income tax? If you’re wondering why they don’t pay taxes, it’s because they are either among the working poor or the non-working poor. They would get no relief from Trump’s plan. Additionally, Trump’s plan eliminates the deduction of federal and local taxes from federal liability. For those who live in states like New York or California where government services are higher and consequently taxes are higher, this means that citizens could well pay more in federal taxes, even with lower rates. NBC does not point this out.

Peter Alexander, NBC News:

The headliner, reducing the number of individual income tax brackets from seven to three, 10%, 25%, and 35%. The Administration doubling the standard deduction for individuals and married couples that would leave more money in people’s pockets and make filing taxes easier.

The problem:

“that would leave more money in people’s pockets.” Again, we have the problem with the 45% who do not pay federal income taxes. Additionally, many of these people gain portions of their income from transfer payments from the government including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What happens when federal revenue goes down because of the tax cuts? With Republicans so hell-bent on trying to balance the budget, the only way that could be attempted would be by drastically cutting expenditures including transfer payments.

Ali Velshi, NBC News on “what this means to the average taxpayer:”

It means you’ll have more money in your bank account. The President wants Americans to spend their tax savings by going shopping. That increases demand, it creates jobs, and it stimulates economic growth. Since the recession, Lester, Americans have used any tax savings to pay down debt instead of spending it on goods and services. Under this plan, working families will save on taxes. The question is, will they spend the extra cash in a way that boosts the economy, or will they choose to pay down debt? One of those things helps the economy, the other one just helps the family, Lester.

The problem:

Velshi assumes that everyone who works gets paid to work. What about adults whose primary job is parenting, either of their own children or their own parents? They are working people who would receive no benefit from tax cuts. It would be worth pointing out that there are other countries where adults are paid to parent. There are millions of other Americans who work hard volunteering essential services but who would get no tax savings.

Additionally, Velshi discounts societal benefits from savings. If there is more money in banks and other financial institutions, then interest rates would be lower and more money would be available for borrowing and investment, both of which stimulate the economy.

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House:

Whatever we can do to get those premiums down but also make sure that the guarantee for people with pre-existing conditions is met.

Kasie Hunt, NBC News:

That’s the risk. Winning over conservatives could cost moderate Republican votes. They’re concerned about spiking costs for people with pre-existing conditions.

Kasie Hunt does not point out the obvious mutual exclusivity of Ryan’s comment. The Speaker says that we can lower premiums and still cover people with pre-existing conditions. The only way that could happen would be with government subsidies (as in the Affordable Care Act) and that is exactly what Ryan opposes.

Hunt also talks about spiking costs for people with pre-existing conditions, but she does not talk about how people with pre-existing conditions are more likely to have health care denied under the Republican plan. Had she said that, reality would have hit home to far more viewers.

It is possible that any one of these oversights in the presentation of the news would not be a serious problem. But taken in the aggregate, they paint a picture of Trump’s tax and health care plans as being potentially beneficial for the American people. Even minimal analysis shows that they could have devastating impact on poor people and others in the middle class. Both measures appear to be forms of class warfare where the strong are given more ammunition to beat up on the less fortunate.

What is important is for the American people to have a better understanding of how skewed “fair and balanced news” is, even when it does not come from Fox. All the networks like to simplify, but at what cost? We are often told that politicians have an obligation to lead and not just follow. The same holds true for the mainstream media.

Link to transcript:

The post NBC Nightly News grossly misses fairness and balance appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The idea of a Donald Trump presidency has me musing about what we were supposed to learn in school. We were taught that capitalism (the force that always wore the white hat) was good because the invisible hand of competition ensured that consumers always had choice and low prices while good businesspersons made money. What capitalism did not need was government getting in the way. Capitalism was good when left unfettered.

Socialism was generally painted in a negative light because it was such a close relative to communism. And communism was that force that spread red ink all over the world as it emanated from the Soviet Union and flowed every direction but north. It would envelop us unless we stopped it. So even if socialism was a system that was designed to put the common good above individual profit, it received short shrift because of the company that it kept.

How things have changed. Russia (the distilled version of the old Soviet Union) is now very much in favor with Donald Trump. In fact, he and Vladimir Putin must be BFFs on some hidden Facebook page. In the 1950s, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said, “we will bury you” to the Americans. It seems that Putin is silently saying “we will co-opt you” as he manipulates our cyber system and invites American businesses like ExxonMobil to do some heavy lifting in Russia, with Putin always having the phrase “nationalize it” going through his mind.

I remember some fifty years ago taking a course in college called “Business-Government Relations.” I was excited about taking it because in my naiveté, I thought that no one ever connected to two and it would be interesting to see how some professor might explain whatever relationship existed.

I think that I learned better than any previous high school history course that there was constant tension in America between business and government. For most of the first half of our nation’s history, business had been able to run free in whatever fashion it wanted to, whether it was taking land from Native-Americans, hiring workers for pittance pay and with little regard for safety, and the creation of monopolies being just fine because Darwin had already taught us of the genius of survival of the fittest.

But concern over monopolies grew at the end of the 19^th Century and Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that put a curb on some of the unfettered capitalist practices.

As the 20^th Century opened, the Progressive Era began with President Theodore Roosevelt. More progressive legislation was passed in the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Then we had FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. All of these eras brought us reasonable restraints upon runaway Capitalism.

The dialogue that we are not having now is what principles should guide the relations between businesses and government. It is de rigueur for businesses to ask various levels of government for tax breaks, subsidies, regulation wavers and anything else that can lower their cost of doing business. It is truly a free market system for businesses as they can shop from country to country, state to state, metropolitan area to metropolitan area, municipal tax authority to municipal tax authority to get the best deal. It is truly a race to the bottom for all levels of government to see who will give the most to expectant businesses.

Trump clearly wants to bring us back to more of an unfettered capitalism. He proposed Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, is opposed to most of his bureau’s regulations regarding wages, safety, and union organizing. He envisions his main constituency becoming robots rather than human beings in the labor force.

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Scott Pruitt does not accept climate change and seems comfortable with businesses not having to curb their activities because some scientists think that emissions from fossil fuels causes climate change.

Trump and other Republicans railed through the campaign complaining about regulations without ever asking the question of why we have them. From the pure capitalist’s point of view, they only exist to hamper businesses. There was a time when Republicans said that we have to get rid of “bad regulations” but now it seems like all regulations are on the chopping block.

Democrats are not always perfect on these issues, but at least they recognize that worker safety, environmental considerations, consumer safety and assurance of competition are all considerations to be weighed against the interests of any single corporation or industry.

Lyndon Johnson used to say, “Let us reason together.” He actually meant it. By the way, what did Donald Trump learn at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business? Was the word “balance” ever uttered?

Is that why “unbalanced” is one of the best ways to describe his administration?

The post With Trump, is there a line between business and government? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Another day, another corporation receiving massive tax breaks by the government. Most recently, it was $7 million from the Trump/Pence administration to Carrier (owned by United Technologies) to stop the company from moving a factory to Mexico. Not all the jobs will be saved, but it’s still being considered a win by the Capitalist-in-chief. Even before he entered politics, Trump the businessman knew how to work the system to get himself millions of dollars in tax breaks. This practice of corporate welfare isn’t new or even that unusual.

Here is a map of the United States, filled in by which company got the largest handout (via targeted tax breaks, grants, and other subsidiaries) in each state.

This infographic was published first on reason.com

The post The United States of corporate welfare appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been perhaps a generation and a half since America experienced the pain of double-digit inflation. We don’t talk much about inflation these days, because it isn’t happening except in the most minuscule measurements. For years we were told by Republicans that profligate spending by Democrats would put the United States further and further into debt which would mean runaway inflation.

The mantra about preventing inflation has been to raise sufficient revenue to cover budget expenses but to also restrain spending. So what is it that President-elect Donald Trump wants to do?

First, he wants to drastically reduce taxes. Republicans love to point out how fifty-five years ago President John F. Kennedy advocated a slight reduction in taxes in order to put more money in circulation and thus further stimulate the economy. It worked for Kennedy because his tax cuts were minimal. But now Trump wants to drastically reduce taxes on both corporations and on individuals.

There may be merits for reducing corporate taxes, particularly if they bring large sums of monies such as Apple’s $200 billion back to the US from Ireland and other tax havens. But with all business taxes being reduced, it means that the initial impact will be reduced tax revenues for the U.S. government. That leads to more federal borrowing and the likelihood of increased inflation.

On the spending side, Trump wants to create a new economic stimulus through infrastructure construction. This is something that Barack Obama has been trying to do all through his presidency, but except for one moderate jump-start in 2009 following the economic collapse of the final Bush years, Republicans have blocked all attempts by Obama. Why? The most likely reason is because he is Barack Obama and he is a Democrat. But if Donald Trump proposes it to Congress, it will likely pass. This is one of those times when Democrats can be statespersons and support good legislation even though it emanates from a Republican (who borrowed it from a Democrat). The stimulus will likely put people to work and if the projects are not boondoggles, it will improve the condition of our country.

But the final leg of the tripod from Trump will be increased military spending. This is something that Republicans can really glom onto. It’s likely that there will be little consideration to what projects might actually increase American security. Trump and other Republicans think that just the idea of spending more for the military will actually make America safer. In other words, we’re supposed to think that if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars for problematic projects, we will all feel better.

One thing about inflation is that it is class-blind. Unlike unemployment, it equally impacts people of all economic strata. So a word of caution to the Republicans in all branches of government: if you really want to piss off the widest swath of the American public, follow the plan of reducing taxes for the wealthy while dramatically increasing spending, particularly for projects that have minimal marginal return. Higher prices for milk affects some people; not others. Higher prices for luxury cars affects some; not others. Higher prices for rent or home ownership affects virtually everyone.

Democrats will not be able to do much to prevent Republicans for paving the road of inflation. The only way the Republicans might prevent it is by drastically reducing social safety net spending. Trump won the election by capturing the votes of those who are forty-five years of age and older. He should see how much they would like having their Social Security and Medicare gored.

So unless Trump does enough unthinkable things between now and December 19 when the Electoral College “meets,” he will become president. You may need to brace yourself for a ride on the Trumpian Inflation Superhighway.

The post Remember inflation? Let Trumponomics remind you appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post Legislative pickpockets: What 2016 right-wing laws cost MO taxpayers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback [R]—who started the whole mess—knows it. The Republican dominated Kansas legislature—who gleefully made it happen—knows it, too. The radical, right-wing economic experiment in tax reduction that they imposed on Kansas citizens has failed—miserably, ignominiously, publicly—to do what its theoreticians promised it would do: magically stimulate the Kansas economy through that good-old, theoretical mantra known as “trickle-down” economics.

But for liberal/progressives who saw the trickle-down philosophy for what it really was—utter bullshit designed to kill the government programs that “fetter” capitalism—there is no real joy in its failure, because the effects Brownback’s policies have hurt people—actual people, not corporations—so badly.

We could, I suppose, take some satisfaction from the desperation now rampant among Kansas’ Republican “leadership,” and their decision to, with tails between their legs, do precisely what they said they would never have to do: raise taxes. We could say that, with Kansas raising taxes, pigs are flying and hell has frozen over.

But, in fact, there is little satisfaction to be taken, because, true to form—form being protection of the rich and punishment of the poor—they are “raising taxes” in the worst possible way.

The taxes they are raising are those that hit lower-income people the most. According to the Kansas City Star, a bill passed [June 2, 2015] in the Kansas Senate would increase sales taxes from 6.15 percent to 6.55 percent beginning July 1 and drop the sales tax on food to 4.95 percent in July 2016. It would eliminate most itemized deductions and raise the cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack to $1.29.

At the same time, they are steadfastly sticking to their low state-income-tax policy. According to BankRate.com,

Kansas revised its individual income tax system in 2013, going from three tax brackets to two and reducing the rates for both. At that time, the rates became 2.7 percent on the first $15,000 of taxable income, and 4.8 percent on taxable income of $15,001 and more.

By comparison, Iowa has nine income-tax brackets, with the highest being 8.98 percent [on taxable income over $68,176]

But even Kansas’ very low tax rate is not low enough for Gov. Brownback. When he was first elected, he vowed to repeal the state income tax entirely, claiming that reducing income taxes and raising sales taxes is a more efficient way to raise revenue and to attract businesses to the state. He is now seeing the disastrous results of that idea–a reported $400 million budget shortfall.

Kansas’ move to bump up sales taxes is shameful. Sales taxes are regressive, raising everyday costs disproportionately for those with less disposable income. Couple increased sales taxes with the state’s very low income-tax rate [or, worse yet, the absence of a state income tax—Brownback’s dream], and you have a situation in which lower-income people are, in effect, subsidizing their wealthier counterparts.

It’s obvious that a better solution would be to do the logical, responsible and fair thing: Institute a more realistic income-tax rate—in a progressive structure that would ask more of those who have more. Or, at the very least, institute a luxury tax on high-cost items. But apparently, even as its schools fall apart, its infrastructure goes unrepaired, its safety-net services fail, and its police, fire and EMS services go underfunded, Kansas’ state government is not interested in doing its job.

Kansas’ political leaders [and I use that term very loosely] have been using an economic argument that they know to be false, as cover for their penchant for helping their wealthy buddies and campaign donors. Their new revenue-producing, “corrective” policies cynically protect the rich and judgmentally punish the poor, rather than being anything remotely resembling the right thing.

The post Kansas raises taxes…reluctantly and nastily appeared first on Occasional Planet.

For the past 30 years, “We can’t afford it” has become the mantra of city councilmen, state legislators and even U.S. Congressional representatives.

But there is something terribly wrong with that.

What do lawmakers mean by “it?” There are many meanings. Sometimes, “it” is higher salaries for teachers. Sometimes, “it” is repairs to crumbling bridges. “It” can also refer to pay raises for the city workers who pick up our trash, clean the bathrooms in municipal buildings, and mop up after floods, windstorms and festivals. “It” also often refers to federal programs, like Medicare and Social Security, or to state-run programs like Medicaid and health care for children in indigent families.

The “we-can’t-afford-it” argument has become so ubiquitous that we have stopped questioning its validity and the reasoning behind it. The public—abetted by the media—has come to accept that there’s just not enough money, and that programs, services and benefits, of necessity, need to be slashed, because, well, that’s the way it is.

That acceptance is misguided.

In fact, we could afford all of the “its,” if we did what really needs to be done—and what anyone with an iota of sense about how government should operate knows is necessary—raise taxes in a way that would be fair [meaning, asking wealthier people to kick in their fair share].

But we don’t do that. Not only don’t we do it, we don’t even talk about it.

Why? Because, over the past 30 years, the right-wing’s anti-tax propaganda campaign has worked its way into America’s psyche. The Republican message machine has successfully convinced Americans that taxes are bad—even taxes that fund services and benefits that help people—like Social Security, police protection, fire and rescue, road repairs, and so many more. They’ve made taxes something from which we need “relief,” not something that assures the continuity of programs that people expect—and howl about when they are inadequate.

For a while, there was somewhat of a dialogue about this topic: Remember linguist George Lakoff? He fought bravely against the “tax relief” meme. But the fight seems to be over. The anti-taxers have won. Their message is so deeply embedded in today’s political discourse that they don’t even have to mention “tax relief” any more. Not in public statements. Not in media reports, either: No one actually reports on the context and the motivation behind all of this.

And so, the discussion has shifted: We simply assume that there’s no more money available. We can’t possibly expand programs or raise benefits or wages, the story goes, because there just isn’t any money for that.

But, in fact, there IS money for that. Mostly, it’s in the wallets and off-shore accounts of the wealthy people who are assiduously protected from fairer taxes by their Republican minions.

Social Security? There’s plenty of money out there. It’s just untapped, because the solution to Social Security’s purported issues—raising the ridiculously low taxation cap of $118,500—is not even being discussed anymore. The only discussion comes from the right—and what they’re talking about are things like cutting Social Security benefits, raising the eligibility age, privatizing the whole shebang, or eliminating it altogether. .

Infrastructure? There’s no money for that? Baloney. The money is there, but it might involve raising the tax on a gallon of gas. We can’t even bring that up anymore.

You get the idea. It applies across the board. The real reason that “we can’t afford that,” is not that the money doesn’t exist, it’s that we won’t contemplate what really needs to be done. The right-wing propaganda department has made it politically impossible to discuss doing these things. The anti-tax ideology has become so much a part of our national psyche that I’m not sure most people even know that they’ve internalized it. They want the programs; they need the services; they expect government to do the big things that only government can do: But they wring their hands, and sigh, and give up, because they’ve unwittingly adopted the notion that there’s no more money to be had.

Of course, the anti-taxers are not interested in “relief” for middle-class earners or poor people: They are about protecting the wealth of the wealthy. [And funneling money to the military—for which there is ALWAYS money—and, via tax breaks, to the defense contractors whose campaign contributions are mother’s milk to politicians.]

On a related note: A number of years ago, I attended a dinner honoring a healthcare executive. The keynote speaker was the chairman of the hospital corporation’s board—a well-known industrialist who made a fortune as a defense contractor. During his speech, he talked about the problems he had encountered in running a company. “The truth is,” he said, “that most managers and executives know what needs to be done. The problem is that they just don’t do it.”

The same goes for funding government programs. There’s no courage to do what reasonable people know has to be done. There’s no political will to buck the increasingly rich donor class who own the politicians. So, our elected representatives—at all levels—just go along. Not asking why—not even aware of why they don’t ask why.

And people suffer. But nobody talks about it.

The post “We can’t afford it.” The untrue, anti-tax mantra of 21st century government appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the next few years, two of the biggest potential economic developments in the St. Louis metropolitan area may be a new stadium for the St. Louis Rams and a new location for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. These are both complicated projects with numerous financial variables. One way to simplify matters, though rarely discussed, is for the federal government to step forward to clarify and equalize tax burdens.

The Rams stadium situation is one that is being repeated across the country, and possibly soon across the ocean to London and beyond. The Rams moved to St. Louis from Los Angeles twenty years ago. St. Louis built a domed stadium for the Rams and gave team ownership the most favorable lease in the league. Now the team argues that the stadium is not in the top 25 percent of stadiums in the league, and under the terms of the contract, they are now free to move elsewhere. Los Angeles, which has been football starved for twenty years, is anxious to have the Rams back. Concurrently, NFL teams in Oakland, CA and San Diego, CA are looking for ways to leave their traditional venues and to also move to LA.

This is the kind of mess where you want “an adult in the room” to appear. As it presently stands, cities are battling against one another for sweetheart deals from each of the municipalities with whom they are negotiating. In order to make new stadiums most feasible, they are looking for the best possible tax breaks in Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, and St. Louis.

The adult in the room that is needed is the federal government. It can solve these problems rather easily, but the political will to do so seems miles away. The federal government treats the NFL as some super-sanctified profitable non-profit organization (somewhat akin to the Catholic Church). NFL, Inc. has non-profit status, yet it makes billions of dollars each year. We’re not talking about just the money that the 32 individual franchises make; we’re talking about what the corporate monolith accrues.

What is needed is for the federal government to put the interests of the fans of the franchises ahead of the billionaires who own the teams. This means that the government must set in place rules that forbid communities from bidding for professional football teams, largely on the basis of waiving state and local taxes that most any other business would have to pay. Who can give the most to the Rams, St. Louis or Los Angeles? Who can give the most to the Raiders and Chargers? This question has been asked about storied franchises such as the Miami Dolphins and the New Orleans Saints.

It’s time to stop the madness, and one way to do that is to strip from states and locales the power to levy most taxes. If the federal government had a series of progressive taxes that took the place of the bizarre hodge-podge of state and local taxes that now exist, it could make the system much simpler and much fairer (two values that even Republicans espouse).

Regarding relocation of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, four sites in the St. Louis metropolitan area are being considered. One is in Illinois, adjacent to Scott Air Force Base. The land is already owned by the federal government, so the purchase price would be zero. Since the federal government does not tax land, no tax revenue would be lost if the NGIA relocated there.

A preferred site for people in St. Louis is in north city, adjacent to the infamous Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project of years past. Much of this land is privately owned and would have to be purchased through  eminent domain. The expected cost to the city would be $8 to $10 million for residential properties and millions more for several businesses located in the area. Even if the city purchases the land and sells it to the federal government at fair market value, the city would still lose all the property tax that it is currently collecting from the area. This again is the kind of problem that would not exist if the federal government had the role of tax collector in our metropolitan areas, meaning that no locale would need to worry about loss of tax revenue if a public development is built.

As feasible as the idea of the federal government as tax collector for all jurisdictions would be, it is not on our political radar.A serious consideration of reforming our taxes in a way that stops localities from cannibalizing one another is indeed a worthwhile goal. It would not help St. Louis and the Rams, nor St. Louis and the NGIA, but it could help us several decades down the road when similar problems occur. As always, keep the dialogue flowing.

The post Let the feds be tax collectors for all appeared first on Occasional Planet.