Category: Tax Issues

Dark Money Keeps Flowing Into Our Politics

The Daily Escape:

Cranberry Bog, Old Sandwich Road, Cape Cod MA – October 2023 photo by Ken Grille Photography

As usual, we’re enjoying our time on Cape Cod. We visited a cranberry bog operator yesterday and learned that the number one use of cranberries in America is making crasins. Those packages of whole cranberries you purchase at Thanksgiving make up just 1% of US cranberry sales.

Two topics today: First, as much as Wrongo would like, he can’t ignore the escalating war between Israel and Hamas. Many have written about the conflict. Wrongo wants to spend a few minutes on this week’s hypocrisy by House Republicans. Ja’han Jones wrote for MSNBC:

“In February, several Republicans signed on to a bill, introduced by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., that was aimed at ending US military and financial aid to Ukraine.”

At the time, Gaetz said:

“America is in a state of managed decline, and it will exacerbate if we continue to hemorrhage taxpayer dollars toward a foreign war…”

But on Sunday, Gaetz said on Meet the Press that we should up our support to Israel:

“The reason we have this multibillion-dollar commitment…to Israel is because we want Israel to have a qualitative military edge over everyone in the region…”

Just last week Gaetz and other Republicans were willing to shut down the federal government over aid to Ukraine. Aiding Ukraine means spending to assist in a fight against Russia, which the MAGAverse is apparently supports only very weakly. But aiding Israel, which this time means spending to assist in a fight against Hamas, is ok. Republicans like spending money fighting Muslims.

Anne Applebaum in The Atlantic warns that the “rules-based world order” is on the verge of breaking down:

“Open brutality has again become celebrated in international conflicts, and a long time may pass before anything else replaces it.”

This applies to both Ukraine and to Israel. We can’t afford to ignore one in favor of the other.

Our second issue today is that the billionaire Charles Koch is using a tax dodge to fund his ongoing political activities. From Judd Legum:

“…Charles Koch…is funneling his wealth into two organizations that can continue his right-wing political advocacy for years. Koch structured more than $5 billion in donations to…allow him to avoid paying capital gains or gift taxes. It’s not surprising that Koch is familiar with the loophole — he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying to create it.”

Legum cites a Forbes article which states that in 2022, Koch donated $4.3 billion in Koch Industries stock to Believe in People, a newly formed 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. The organization is run by Koch’s inner circle, including his son, Chase Koch along with Dave Robertson, co-CEO of Koch Industries, and Brian Hooks, the co-author of Charles Koch’s last book.

From Forbes: (brackets by Wrongo)

“ [Koch] has already quietly transferred $5.3 billion of nonvoting stock to a pair of nonprofits….Forbes estimates those shares account for nearly a tenth of the 42% stake previously held by Charles (though he still has 42% voting power).”

The other Koch nonprofit is called CCKc4. In 2020, Koch also donated $975 million in Koch Industries stock to CCKc4, controlled exclusively by Charles’ son, Chase Koch. Legum reports that in its 2020 IRS filing, CCKc4 listed its mission as “N/A.” The gift to Believe in People is now the largest publicly disclosed donation to a 501(c)4–a type of nonprofit with fewer restrictions on lobbying and politics than traditional charities.

Unlike a traditional 501(c)3 nonprofit, a C4 can own an entire for-profit company indefinitely and (so long as these activities support its principal purpose) benefit private individuals; engage in an unlimited amount of issue lobbying; and get directly involved in politics.

Since Congress exempted donations to C4s from the usual 40% federal gift tax in 2015, a number of billionaires have donated 100% of their companies to C4s. Before Koch’s gift the largest of these C4 donations was by Patagonia’s founder Yvon Chouinard, who transferred all of his outdoor clothing and gear retailer’s nonvoting stock to an environmentally-focused C4 in 2022. At the time of the gift, Patagonia was reportedly valued around $3 billion.

Legum reports that Koch’s main political spending vehicle, Americans for Prosperity Action (AFP Action), in the 2022 election cycle spent 95% of its money on Republican candidates who were formally endorsed by Trump or who actively campaigned as Trump supporters. AFP Action spent just $3.5 million on candidates not aligned with Trump and zero dollars supporting Democratic candidates.

This is America in the 2020s: $ billions “donated” by billionaires to protect other billionaires. The tax dodge was enacted in 2015 during the Obama administration. This expansion of tax-free funding of political action is something that is unknown to average people, yet it impacts our politics through its substantial invisible influence. It strips money from the government’s coffers while simultaneously further poisoning US democracy. The only way to take back control of our politics is to take back control of the flow of money into our politics.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Two Writers Who Speak To What America Needs

The Daily Escape:

Wukoki, Wupatli National Monument, AZ – September 2023 photo by David Erickson

September is underway, and we’re about to have a negotiation about government spending. But that doesn’t mean that the news this month will be any less stupid than last month’s. Also, as the Republican presidential candidates demonstrate every day, we don’t actually know whether the GOP is a dying Party or, the rising single Party of an authoritarian state.

Unless and until the traditional press presents these as the stakes, it is very unclear which it’ll end up being. With this as an introduction, Wrongo wants to introduce two writers who are attempting to break through our chain of bad policies and the bad ideology that threatens our democracy.

First, from Wesley Lowery in the Columbia Journalism Review:

“We find ourselves in a perilous moment. Democracy is under withering assault. Technological advances have empowered propagandists to profit through discontent and disinformation. A coordinated, fifty-year campaign waged by one of our major political parties to denigrate the media and call objective reality into question has reached its logical conclusion: we occupy a nation in which a sizable portion of the public cannot reliably tell fact from fiction. The rise of a powerful nativist movement has provided a test not only of American multiracial democracy, but also of the institutions sworn to protect it.”

Lowery is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. He goes on to say:

“In 2020, I argued that the press had often failed this test by engaging in performative neutrality, paint-by-the-numbers balance, and thoughtless deference to government officials. Too many news organizations were as concerned with projecting impartiality as they were with actually achieving it, prioritizing the perception of their virtue in the minds of a hopelessly polarized audience…”

Lowery also says that news organizations often rely on euphemisms instead of clarity in clear cases of racism (“racially charged,” “racially tinged”) and acts of government violence (“officer-involved shooting”). He says that these editorial decisions are not only journalistic failings, but also moral ones:

“…when the weight of the evidence is clear, it is wrong to conceal the truth. Justified as “objectivity,” they are in fact its distortion.”

Lowery concludes by saying:

“It’s time to set aside silly word games and to rise to the urgent test presented by this moment.”

Second, Bob Lord is a tax attorney and associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He also serves a senior advisor on tax policy for Patriotic Millionaires. At Inequality.org, he proposes a graduated wealth tax on the rich:

“The United States is experiencing a level of wealth inequality not seen since the original Gilded Age. This yawning gap between rich and poor has unfolded right out in the open, in full public view and with the support of both political parties.

A malignant class of modern robber barons has amassed unthinkably large fortunes. These wealthy have catastrophically impacted our politics. They have weaponized their wealth to co-opt, corrupt, and choke off representative democracy. They have purchased members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court. They have manipulated their newfound political power to amass ever-larger fortunes.”

More from Lord:

“In well-functioning democracies, tax systems serve as a firewall against undue wealth accumulation. By that yardstick, our contemporary US tax system has failed spectacularly….Our nation’s current tax practices allow and even encourage obscene fortunes to metastasize while saddling working people with all the costs of that metastasizing.”

Lord along with the Patriotic Millionaires propose new legislation, called the Oligarch Act (Oppose Limitless Inequality Growth and Reverse Community Harms). It is being brought forward by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Summer Lee (D-PA). The Lees have developed a graduated wealth tax tied directly to the highest wealth in America. The Oligarch Act propose a set of tax rates that escalate as a taxpayer’s wealth escalates:

  • A 2% annual tax on wealth between 1,000 and 10,000 times the median household wealth.
  • A 4% tax on wealth between 10,000 and 100,000 times the median household wealth.
  • A 6% tax on wealth between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times the median household wealth.
  • An 8% tax on wealth exceeding 1,000,000 times the median household wealth.

Per the US Census Bureau, the median household wealth in 2021 was $166,900. So the first tier 2% wealth tax would kick in at $166,900,000, and so on.

This would affect only very high levels of household wealth. To put that in perspective, according to the Federal Reserve, the wealth level that puts you into the top 0.1% of households in 2019 Q3 was $38,233,372. So if enacted, this Act would touch a really small number of outrageously wealthy households. Also, their taxable amount would be peanuts by their own standards.

The legislation would also require at least a 30% IRS audit rate on households affected by the new wealth tax. One recent estimate indicated that the richest Americans dodge taxes on more than 20% of their earnings, costing the federal government around $175 billion in revenue each year.

The immediate argument is that this tax will never pass as long as the filibuster is intact. And here’s how the work of both authors comes together. We see the “it will never pass” objection from journalists and pundits who try to appear savvy in the ways of DC. On any cable news show, someone is sure to jump up to say it.

The paradox is that if you look at the Congressional Record and flip to the special orders section and extensions of remarks, you’ll notice they’re filled with speeches and statements on behalf of recently introduced bills which the sponsors know will never pass as written. So why do they do it?

Because the point of introducing a bill is not just to pass it in the current session of Congress. It never has been. There is a tradition going back to the earliest days of Congress of introducing bills to make arguments and advance debate. Many famous members of Congress (think Ted Kennedy, Thaddeus Stevens, John Quincy Adams) sponsored or backed multiple bills they knew were not going to become laws.

They did it because they knew that debates over bills that will become laws don’t occur in a vacuum. They happen in the greater context of the debate in Congress over issues which are influenced by every other bill under consideration. And of course, you’ve gotta start somewhere.

Jumping to the conclusion “it will never pass” isn’t being savvy, it’s a sign you’ve missed the point. And it’s a sign of the vapidity of so many journalists and pundits that it’s the first thing out if their mouths. It’s never a good idea to take cues from the stuffed shirts on Fox, CNN and Meet The Press.

This graduated wealth tax is a good start and sets a precedent: There is an amount of wealth that is ruinous to democracy. Taxing it is a necessary condition for preserving democratic governance.

It is true that Congress, as it is presently constructed, will not pass this, or other badly needed legislation. A genuine revolution in thinking will be required. Both Wesley Lowery and Bob Love point us toward fresh thinking about how we start dealing with what we consider to be intractable problems.

Wrongo still has hope for the younger generations who are suffering the consequences of all this government sanctioned selfishness.

Change is coming.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday Soother – May 20, 2023

The Daily Escape:

Daffodils, Laurel Ridge, Litchfield CT – May 2023 photo by Dave King

The oil industry enjoys special economic status in the US. That is demonstrated by the tax breaks and outright subsidies we give them. Hannah Dunlevy notes that:

“In 2020, the explicit and implicit fossil fuel subsidies cost the United States $662 billion, around $2,006 per capita. Cutting just two tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry — the intangible drilling costs subsidy and the percentage depletion tax break — could generate $17.9 billion in government revenue over ten years, according to Congress’s non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.”

Biden’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposed cutting some of tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, which would save the US $31 billion over ten years. It will probably not survive the current Debt Ceiling and budget discussions.

One hidden subsidy that the oil industry enjoys is when wells are no longer productive – they are idled. If it’s no longer profitable to return idled wells to production, they need to be plugged. And the cost of plugging a well can be $100,000 or more.

The problem is that when wells start to decline, they are sold by Big Oil to smaller producers. When the well is sold, the plugging and cleanup liability passes to the new buyer. And often, the new buyer simply walks away from the uneconomic well, creating what the industry calls “orphaned wells”. But if a company doesn’t plug its wells before walking away, the cleanup costs will ultimately fall to taxpayers and current operators.

This has already happened with thousands of wells in California and may happen to millions more across the country. Pro Publica reports that there are more than two million unplugged oil wells scattered across the US. California is just the tip of the iceberg.

Petroleum reservoir engineer Dwayne Purvis laid out the reality at a recent conference. His research shows that more than 90% of the country’s unplugged wells are either idle or minimally producing and unlikely to make a comeback.

California is the canary in a coal mine. Shell and ExxonMobil recently agreed to sell more than 23,000 California wells which they owned through a joint venture, to a German asset management group IKAV for an estimated $4 billion. This means that a subsidiary of IKAV now owns about a quarter of California’s oil and gas production, largely in Kern and Ventura counties.

This ownership shift moves the subsequent environmental liability from Big Oil powerhouses to firms with smaller capitalization, increasing the risk that aging wells will be left orphaned, unplugged and leaking oil, brine and methane. For California and other states, this could repeat what was seen in coal mining, which led to taxpayers bearing all of the cleanup costs.

The oil industry has created layers of LLCs that are used to screen Big Oil from the dirty end of the oil business, like responsibility for cleaning up the messes that they make. And these firms can easily declare bankruptcy rather than pay for cleaning up orphan or idle wells.

ProPublica reports on an analysis by Carbon Tracker Initiative, a financial think tank that used the California regulators’ draft methodology for calculating the costs associated with plugging oil and gas wells and decommissioning them along with their related infrastructure.

The cost categories included plugging wells, dismantling surface infrastructure and decontaminating polluted drilling sites. That would cost California about $13.2 billion. Adding inflation and the price of decommissioning miles of pipeline could bring the total cleanup bill to $21.5 billion.

Meanwhile, Purvis estimates that California oil and gas production will earn only about $6.3 billion in future profits over the remaining course of operations; nowhere near sufficient to pay for the cleanup, even if those profits could be captured by the state.

That’s just California. These costs are what economists call “Externalities”. An externality is an indirect cost (or benefit) to a party (taxpayers) that arises as an effect of another party’s (Oil Companies) economic activity. The problem is that the price of their product doesn’t include the externalities. That means there is a gap between the profit of these corporations and the aggregate loss to society as a whole.

Republicans have a tried and true solution for this problem. Taxpayers pay the bills. We’re back to the “privatize profit, socialize the losses” game that corporations have played forever. Maybe the correct terminology should be socialism for the rich.

They prefer to call it keeping government off the backs of job creators.

Time to let go of California’s messy problem and find a few minutes to center ourselves before next week which will bring either financial Armageddon, or a diminished Biden. At the Fields of Wrong, we had a freeze last Wednesday that caused us to cover the newly planted vegetables and bring the Meyer Lemon tree indoors. Spring in Connecticut can always show up with a backtracking nod towards winter.

But on this rainy Saturday, grab a chair by a big window and listen to Debussy’s “Nuages” (‘Clouds’) from his “Trois Nocturnes”. Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra made the first American recording of Debussy’s “Three Nocturnes” for a 1950 LP.

Here is the first “Nocturne”, a musical impression of slow-moving clouds:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Links You Can Use

The Daily Escape:

Santa Rita prickly pear in bloom, AZ – May 2023 photo by Wilson Goodrich

Today Wrongo returns to his “Links you can use” format from several years ago.

First up, Bloomberg reports that Trump’s takeover of the GOP helped him to rewrite the rules on how primary delegates to the GOP presidential convention will be awarded. Since leaving office, Trump has gotten 10 more states to award delegates through winner-take-all primaries, even if the winner receives fewer than a majority of the votes. The number of winner-take-all states has grown from seven to 17.

Needless to say, if it’s crowded field and he gets the most votes, even if it’s only 30%, he’ll win.

Second, Republican governors have discovered that they’re getting significant political mileage out of championing people who have engaged in vigilante violence that dovetails with the GOP’s culture wars. Brian Klaas writes about the Right’s open embrace of political violence. In Texas, Governor Abbott has said that he was “looking forward” to pardoning Daniel Perry, who murdered a Black Lives Matter protester. Perry was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He had previously texted a friend that he “might have to kill” some people on his way to work.

Over the weekend, Florida Governor DeSantis tweeted his support for Daniel Penny (Perry and Penny?) after Penny killed the homeless Black man Jordan Neely, on NYC’s subway. DeSantis didn’t hold back:

Lots of dog whistles right there from the governor. NBC 4New York reported that the legal defense fund had raised more than $2 million after DeSantis tweeted the link to Penny’s donation page. This shows MAGAs have found another way to wealth and fame as Daniel Penny now joins Kyle Rittenhouse as a violent millionaire funded by the Republican Right.

Brian Klaas wrote about a study that shows “Who Supports Political Violence?”, conducted by Miles T. Armaly, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Mississippi and Adam M. Enders, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Louisville. Their findings show some key traits that predict support for political violence:

Perceived victimhood is highly correlated with support for political violence. This is different from actual victimhood. While previous research found that people who are actually being oppressed are more likely to turn to violence, this study shows that it doesn’t really matter whether someone is actually being oppressed; instead, the feeling of being oppressed is sufficient.

This was the strongest predictor of support for violence.

The next strongest correlate was a sense of “white identity.” And the two interact, as those who buy into the Right-wing narrative that white people are under attack in America (due to their loss of social dominance), are also likely to be the same individuals who feel perceived victimhood.

Also, past military service is correlated with a predisposition for vigilante violence. People who previously served in the American armed forces were more likely to express support for political violence than those who have not. None of this is good news for the US.

Third, the Debt Ceiling negotiations are resuming today in the White House after House, Senate and White House negotiators met for three hours Saturday, and then reconvened on Monday. Benjamin Studebaker worries that Biden may be about to repeat Obama’s errors in negotiations with Republicans in 2011:

“Back in 2011…Obama faced the same problem…Biden now faces. Congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling unless Obama agreed to budget cuts….Obama….Instead…cut a deal. He signed the Budget Control Act of 2011. It committed the federal government to…enormous cuts. Over the course of 2012, it became clear that these cuts would cause serious damage to the economy. So…Obama negotiated another deal that would save most of the cuts for 2013. Over the course of 2013, the same arguments were made again, but this time Obama was unable to secure another delay, and the cuts took effect.”

Sounds like what we’re going through right now. In 2013, we escaped the economic disaster, but at the price of the Fed adding several rounds of Quantitative Easing leading to our current economic situation. If Biden agrees to cut spending, the economy will again be damaged.

And the Federal Reserve will be pressured to limit the damage via lower rates or flooding the market with more dollars.

Republicans will, of course, oppose tax increases. That means the Biden administration won’t be able to raise taxes to help offset the growing deficit or pay for future expenses. Therefore it has to rely on the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies. The weaker economy created by rate hikes is an economy where the current tax rates will generate less tax revenue. That creates more political pressure to cut spending.

All of these stories look like rinse, lather, repeat. And not to the nation’s benefit.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Prepaying Taxes? Don’t Be Stupid

The Daily Escape:

Saguaro in bloom, Gold Canyon, AZ – May 2023 photo by Karin Ingebrigtsen Hetsler

In the discussion about the Debt Ceiling, it’s become clear that America has a problem with tax collections, which are running behind what was forecast. While tax receipts were always expected to be below 2021’s robust levels, they are even weaker than forecast, down around 35% so far.

That means absent a deal between the Parties, we will hit the Debt Ceiling sooner than we thought. This is largely due to a weaker stock market and lower economic growth than the country had in 2021.

But it’s also true that America has an enormously complicated tax code, built by decades of lobbyists working with the Congress to carve loopholes into the Code to provide legal tax avoidance strategies to their corporate clients.

Imagine a world where corporations and individuals didn’t try to weasel out on their tax obligations to the government…Impossible, you say?

Well, consider Ukraine. We’ve been told that Ukraine is rank with corruption and a large informal economy. Both may be true but read what The Economist has to say about tax receipts during their war with Russia: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“After Russia invaded in February last year, Ukraine’s finance minister, Serhiy Marchenko, braced…for government revenues to “plummet”. He says he expected them to fall by roughly as much as economic activity. That did not happen. Although Ukraine’s GDP plunged by 29% in 2022, the state pulled in just 14% less than the year before.”

Of course the war led to drops in tax revenues from imports and tourism. Blackouts caused by Russian attacks on power plants and the grid disrupted automated reporting of taxable transactions. More from The Economist:

“What, then, is behind the state’s “unique results”, as an official puts it, in wartime revenue collection? One explanation is that firms and taxpayers, eager to support their country’s defense, are paying more tax than required.”

Still more: (brackets by Wrongo)

“According to Ukraine’s finance ministry, in March last year such donations came to 26b[illio]n hryvnias ($880m), rising to 28b[illio]n in May.”

Why are Ukrainian businesses and individuals motivated not to avoid taxes like in the US, but to make donations and pay taxes in advance? The Economist quotes a tax partner with Price Waterhouse Coopers, with responsibility for Ukraine:

“…if Ukraine wins, you’ve got your country; if Russia wins, thuggish authorities will take your money anyway, so why not help out now?”

A lawyer at a Ukraine law firm says that many of his corporate clients have asked for guidance on how to prepay taxes. And now a year later, the lawyer says that nearly all the 100-odd clients he serves have begun to prepay. According to the lawyer, efforts to seek loopholes to lower tax bills have decreased.

Finally, The Economist reports that Ukraine’s State Tax Service continues to receive payments, through its online portal, from the territories occupied by Russia (except for Crimea). Despite the pressure to pay Russian taxes, apparently, last year 2.3 million individuals and organizations in occupied areas paid $9.5 billion in taxes to Ukraine.

They are doing this despite the risk of retribution from their Russian overlords. Can you imagine anything like this happening in the shell of a country we call the United States?

There are other factors at work. Taxes on gas production were raised last year. The Economist quotes Danil Getmantsev, chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s Committee on Finance, Taxation and Customs Policy, who says that a crackdown on corruption also may have had something to do with it.

No one should think that Wrongo is saying that Ukraine is a better place to live and work than is the US. The key point is they are demonstrating that in a country that was thought to be barely unified before the war, it now acts as one. Try to imagine how, under similar circumstances what it would take for companies and citizens in the US to freely prepay their taxes. (Wrongo knows about the need in the US for some Americans to file quarterly returns, which is a form of prepayment).

Or imagine people willingly donating to the government in an effort to keep us free.

Nope. We’re addicted to fiscal gimmickry. Anything to pay less to the government. After all, Trump said not paying taxes showed that he was a smart guy.

Facebooklinkedinrss

What To Do About Social Security and Medicare

The Daily Escape:

Lupine and poppies, near Glendale, AZ – March 2023 photo by Marion Cart

From Joe Perticone:

“Social Security and Medicare are headed for insolvency—that’s just a mathematical, demographic fact. But when it comes to addressing the problem, there’s virtually nothing the two parties actually agree on. For years, Republicans have waffled between proposing cuts and kicking the can down the road.”

Republicans are correct that Social Security (SS) and Medicare (M) are marching toward insolvency. But they trip over their own feet with their proposals to save them. Republicans are wrong to think they can solve the solvency questions without raising taxes. Once the Republicans take taxes off the table, they’re left without any real solutions to propose.

The Biden administration has done a good job in pre-emptively going after Republican’s ideas about cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. The result is that the GOP is squabbling between themselves and scrambling to come up with a plan they could take to the public.

It’s not just the federal debt that should be discussed. Dr. Donald Berwick head of Medicare and Medicaid during the Obama administration wrote in JAMA: (emphasis by Wrongo):

“A total of 41% of US adults, 100 million people, bear medical debts. One of every 8 individuals owes more than $10,000. In Massachusetts, 46% of adults say they skip needed care because of costs. As of 2021, 58% of all debt collections in the US are for medical bills.”

The WaPo explains why people who live in the American South have bad credit scores. It turns out that neither race nor poverty were the deciding factors. It was medical debt:

“Of the 100 counties with the highest share of adults struggling to pay their medical debt, 92 are in the South, and the other eight are in neighboring Oklahoma and Missouri…”

But why the South? Yes, as a region, it’s unhealthy. But there are several Northeastern states where residents struggle with chronic health conditions but have good credit. One thing that stands out is the lack of Medicaid:

“…a recent analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association…found that medical debt became more concentrated in lower-income communities in states that did not expand Medicaid after key provisions of the Affordable Care Act took effect in 2014.”

So bad health and bad credit are because of Republican governors’ refusal to expand Medicaid to cover more poor people. Leave it to the south to show a MAGA future for all of us: undereducated, unhealthy, and neck-deep in debt.

More from WaPo:

“In states that immediately expanded Medicaid, medical debt was slashed nearly in half between 2013 and 2020. In states that didn’t expand Medicaid, medical debt fell just 10%, the JAMA team found. And in low-income communities in those states, debt levels actually rose.”

It’s probably not a surprise that deep medical indebtedness isn’t a threat in any other developed nation on earth. It isn’t a surprise that health care in the US costs nearly twice as much as care in any other developed nation, while US health status and longevity lag far behind.

Legislating in the US is always a process. That means Congress labors to find incremental gains they dress up as reforms. The 1983 deal struck by Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill is considered to be one of the great bipartisan compromises. It combined benefit cuts with revenue increases to put Social Security back on a sound financial footing that has lasted for decades.

This time, getting rid of the income cap on the SS tax would help to keep it funded for an additional 35 years. At that point the Baby Boom demographic bulge will be over, and a different set of reforms can be proposed.

Medicare is the second largest program in the federal budget, equaling 10% of the total. Medicare spending is also a major driver of long-term federal spending and is projected to rise from 4% of GDP in FY 2021 to about 6% in FY 2052 due to the retirement of the Baby Boom generation and the continuing rapid growth of per capita healthcare costs:

Medicaid accounts for another 9%. But it’s also the largest source of federal revenues for state budgets. As a result of the federal dollar matching structure, Medicaid has a unique role in state budgets as both an expenditure item and a source of revenue.

Over the next few years, we’re going to need to come up with solutions to the problem of what to do about growing health care costs that are (along with lower tax revenues from recent Republican tax cuts) driving our ever larger US budget deficits.

Both sides are going to have to compromise. There’s no way we’re going to balance the budget in 10 years (or ever) unless we talk about increasing revenues while slowing the growth in the costs of health care that our entitlement programs cover.

Facebooklinkedinrss

It’s Impossible To Buy A $200k Home Anymore

The Daily Escape:

Mt. Hood sunrise – February 2023 photo by Mitch Schreiber Photography

Happy Valentine’s Day for those who celebrate! If you don’t celebrate, find someone or something to give a little bit of love to.

In all of the hype about the Super Bowl and Rihanna’s halftime show, you may have missed that homes selling for less than $200k have basically disappeared in America.

John Burns, a real estate consultant, reports that they are now 0% of the new home market. They were 40% of the market 10 years ago. Burns also says that $500k+ new homes have grown from 17% of the market to 38% of the market during Covid. He provides this handy chart showing how average home prices have changed since 2010:

At the same time, sales of homes going for $500k or more (red line) have shot up from less than 10% to nearly 40% of the new homes market and represent the largest share of new home sales.

This isn’t great for Millennials looking to buy their first homes, or for retirees who have to downsize. It also explains why many first-time homebuyers are angry.

It’s not only the $200k and under segment that has fallen off a cliff. New homes going for between $200k – $300k now make up just 11% of the total, down from 80% of all new home sales in the year 2000.

Ben Carlson shows Federal Reserve new home price data going back to 2000 that breaks down new homes price points more clearly. He says that those being sold for $750k and up have gone from less than 1% to more than 10% of the market.

A few reasons for the shifts: First, we’re not building enough new houses anymore. Second, we’ve seen changing tastes drive demand toward larger homes, helping move the market to a new floor in home prices. Inflation didn’t help either.

We overbuilt in the 2000s housing bubble, and that led to more than a decade of underbuilding ever since. There was a brief spike during the pandemic housing craze but that has abated with mortgage rates rising so rapidly in the past year.

In 2002-2006, we were building around 120,000 new homes per year. In 2022, it was more like 65,000 units per year. Tastes have changed as well. Houses today are substantially larger than they were in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

In his book The Fifties, David Halberstam talks about how the housing market played a huge role in the rise of the suburbs following World War II. Then houses were about 1,300 square feet. In the 1970s, the median size of a new home in the US was 1,525 square feet. Today it’s around 2,500 square feet.

Tastes have changed. People want bigger houses. They want open floor plans for entertaining, bigger bedrooms with more bathrooms, and more storage space for all of their stuff.

It’s also true that homebuilders aren’t incentivized to build starter homes anymore. In the 1950s the government helped out the troops and their families. With the GI Bill, the federal government took some of the risk that homebuilders wouldn’t be able to find mortgages for all the new houses they were building.

Local zoning regulations have made it difficult to get approvals to build new homes. So builders have moved upmarket in home size to justify those upfront expenses. Starter homes aren’t as profitable as they once were.

There’s a big change in the buyer’s market as well. The WSJ quotes John Burns: (emphasis by Wrongo)

“You now have permanent capital competing with a young couple trying to buy a house.” Burns estimates that in many of the nation’s top markets, roughly one in every five houses sold is bought by someone who never moves in.”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an article last week entitled: “American Dream For Rent: Investors elbow out individual home buyers. Metro Atlanta is ground zero for corporate purchases, locking families into renting’. The Journal says a generational housing shortage, inflated construction costs and a surge in consumer demand all contributed to the historic rise in prices.

But there’s little doubt that a flood of cash from institutional investors has exacerbated it. They quote Maura Neill, a realtor in Alpharetta:

“They go after every listing under $500,000…it’s like clockwork…The property gets listed and, sight unseen, they make offers within an hour.”

This is late-stage capitalism at work. Young working couples are increasingly shut out of buying homes. America is failing them. It would be helpful for families to build equity by purchasing homes instead of renting.

Pricing families out of home ownership carries risks to a cohesive society.

We should have a federal tax policy that disincentivizes ownership of multiple single-family homes, by investment funds. The way to remedy this is to steer investors to other assets that don’t directly impact individual welfare to the same degree as single family housing.

Facebooklinkedinrss

What’s The GOP Plan For Negotiating On The Debt Limit?

The Daily Escape:

Dream Lake, Estes Park CO – January 2023 photo by Rick Berk Photography

(Wrongo and Ms. Right send healing thoughts to friend and blog reader Gloria R.)

We’re all aware that House Republicans are refusing to lift the debt ceiling unless Biden gives them well, something? And Republicans still haven’t decided what they want. The GOP also wants a balanced budget, but they can’t say what should go, or what should stay.

From the WaPo: (Brackets by Wrongo)

“They [GOP] say they want to reduce deficits — but meanwhile have ruled out virtually every path for doing so (cuts to defense, cuts to entitlements, wiping out nondefense discretionary spending, or raising taxes).”

The fact that Republicans are up in the air about what to do highlights the likely Democratic strategy is against their threats about the debt ceiling. Again, from the WaPo:

“Sensing Republicans are on the verge of a blunder in their schemes to use the debt ceiling to hold the economy hostage and try to extract draconian spending cuts, the White House has developed a two-part response strategy.

Part 1: Lay out the simple argument that Republicans are recklessly inviting an economic meltdown even by talking about a possible default.

Part 2: Force House Republicans to put forward a plan on the table and watch as they struggle with the fallout.”

The Democrats along with Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) are daring Republicans to put forward a plan. Senate Majority Leader Schumer (D-NY) said:

“If House Republicans are serious about taking the debt limit hostage in exchange for spending cuts, the new rules that they adopted require them to bring a proposal to the floor of the House and show the American people precisely what kind of cuts they want to make….”

Everyone who follows politics knows that Republicans never take much interest in fiscal sobriety when their Party is in control. They agreed to raise the debt limit three times while Trump was in power.

It seems that Republicans are doing the Democrats’ job for them. They are asking for an economic catastrophe and seeking draconian cuts that their base doesn’t want.

Consider the Republican desire to reduce our deficits. They have pledged to balance the budget (that is, to have a zero annual budget deficit) within 10 years. But they haven’t laid out any plausible mathematical path for getting there. And of the current debt ceiling, 90% of it was committed before Biden took his job.

Some Republican House members want to cut military spending, an idea that both Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) are on board with. But others, including House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-TX), have said defense spending cuts aren’t on the table. Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) said:

“We’ve got to get spending under control, but we are not going to do it on the backs of our troops and our military,”

Waltz thinks Republicans should focus on “entitlements programs,” such as mandatory spending programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But the bi-partisan popularity of these programs makes them hard to cut.

And last Sunday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) was asked to name one thing she was willing to suggest as a spending cut. She instead stated things she wouldn’t put on the table:

“Well, obviously no cuts to Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security….That’s a nonstarter for either side.”

Wrongo has repeatedly suggested tax increases which would help lower deficits, but Republicans have ruled that out.

Instead they’ve changed the House rules so tax cuts will be much easier to pass, and tax increases harder to pass. The House’s rules package now says that any increase in taxes would require a three-fifths vote (60%) rather than a simple majority as previously.

They’ve also proposed doing away with income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes and even the IRS itself in favor of a supersized sales tax that would provide most revenue to the government. Republicans would substitute a 30% sales tax on all purchases and in exchange, do away with income, Social Security and Medicare taxes.

That means workers would keep the gross amount of their paychecks. But it also means that buying everything from groceries to automobiles would be hugely more expensive. It also provides a big tax cut for the wealthy and businesses.

The result is a smaller tax burden for the highest earners and a bigger one for people in the middle.

Once you reject trimming entitlements or defense spending and bake in the cost of the GOP’s proposed tax cuts, you’re left with an additional $20 trillion hole in the Federal budget over the next decade.

OTOH, the White House is expected to release its detailed budget in early March. It will build on budgets it has released previously. Republicans want Biden to negotiate on what to do about money we’ve already spent.

Try doing that with YOUR creditors.

 

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – November 14, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Bison at Grand Teton NP, WY – October 2022 photo by Kerry Key

As we peel the onion of the midterms we learned something from Massachusetts that’s worth thinking about:

“Massachusetts voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that will increase taxes on those earning more than $1 million a year…. The state’s constitution currently requires all income be taxed at uniform rates. The $1 million threshold will be adjusted each year to reflect cost-of-living increases.”

Fifty-two percent of voters approved the amendment which will add a 4% tax on annual incomes above $1 million, on top of the state’s current 5% flat income tax. It takes effect in 2023, and will fund public education, roads, bridges, and public transportation.

It’s expected the new tax will affect roughly 0.6% of Massachusetts households, according to an analysis from Tufts University. The new tax also applies to “one-time millionaires,” including people who make more than $1 million in taxable income from selling their homes or businesses. It’s estimated to bring in roughly $1.3 billion in revenue during fiscal 2023, according to Tufts.

Supporters applauded the new tax as a necessary step to address MA’s income inequality gap. The Economic Policy Institute ranks Massachusetts as the sixth-worst state in the country when it comes to income inequality.

It is true that the US is one of the most economically unequal nations in the developed world. Most of the income and wealth gains of the last decade have gone to the richest 0.1%—households with annual incomes of $2.4 million and wealth of at least $32 million.

So it isn’t surprising that a similar idea has floated around DC for some time. In October 2021, Biden introduced a “millionaire’s surtax,” bill that would raise taxes on all forms of income, including wages, capital gains, and dividends. It would have imposed a 5% tax on incomes above $10 million and an 8% tax on incomes above $25 million, raising $230 billion over 10 years from the wealthiest 0.02% of Americans.

Naturally, it didn’t pass.

So the effort moved to the states, with success in 2022 Massachusetts and failure in California, where its millionaire’s surtax was defeated, 59%-41%.

In some ways, the millionaire tax debate is emblematic of the nation’s deep political divide. Republicans everywhere only want to see taxes go down, and Democrats are seeking to raise them to fund long term problems like battling climate change and adding better infrastructure.

The GOP asks: If climate change is an existential issue affecting us all, does it make sense to address the issue by taxing only a handful of households? Your answer may be different from Wrongo’s who sees the question as a way to deflect the discussion into an endless loop of “whataboutism” regarding who pays taxes.

Republicans have refused to support carbon use taxes. They’ve refused to support cap-and-trade carbon taxes. Most of them deny that climate change is happening and refuse to pro-actively plan to moderate greenhouse gas emissions, here or anywhere else. So they aren’t engaging in a serious discussion when they ask the question.

Although efforts to raise taxes on millionaires have stalled in Washington, they haven’t gone away. That will happen if Republicans control the House in January 2023.

Time to wake up America! Deficits can grow to the sky at the national level but states have to balance their budgets yearly. That’s why some states are making the choice to raise taxes on millionaires, the very people who have gained the most in the past 50 years. Raising taxes is a must in most states for the remainder of this decade.

To help you wake up, watch, and listen to Molly Tuttle channel Grace Slick while covering the Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit“. Tuttle was just named the International Bluegrass Music Association’s Guitar Player of the Year, so you’re seeing “White Rabbit” done as bluegrass, performed in October 2022 in Portland, ME:

Tuttle is an amazing performer. You can learn more about her here.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Monday Wake Up Call – October 3, 2022

The Daily Escape:

Baxter Lake, Baxter State Park, ME – September 2022 photo by Laura Zamfirescu Photography

“We moved to a better neighborhood”. That’s the story of millions of Americans whose lives tracked toward success. In a way, that IS the American Dream, to escape from where you are to someplace better, safer, more upscale.

That version of the American Dream dovetails with our 21st century desire to be isolated from other people. We order dinner from Doordash. We buy housewares from Amazon. We buy automobiles online to avoid talking to the manager at the dealer.

Many of Wrongo’s grandkids say that they hate people, meaning that they only wish to speak with their friends, and not to anyone who might be their customer.

So is alone in a better neighborhood now the American Dream? What about billionaires? They already live in the best neighborhoods. They have battalions of staff insulating them from the rest of us. Have you ever had a meeting with a multi-billionaire? It isn’t an easy thing to do. Over the years, Wrongo has worked for two of them, and they were perfectly fine individuals. But they were completely insulated.

And they made their money the old-fashioned way, inheriting it from their Robber Barron parents.

Today’s mega-rich have mostly found ways to extract value from consumers and businesses via software. Take a look at Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. It’s a list dominated by people who have made money from the digital technology revolution.

And what are they doing with all this wealth? Many are quietly plotting their own survival against the world’s demise. Wrongo heard an interview with Douglas Rushkoff, author of “Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires”. Rushkoff is Professor at City University of NY, also a founder of the Laboratory for Digital Humanism, and a fellow at the Institute for the Future.

Rushkoff explained that billionaires worried about the end of the world know their money will likely be of little value. They’re thinking about political instability, social breakdown, and environmental catastrophe. A number of the world’s richest people are preparing for these events by building bunkers in New Zealand and in other remote locations. From Rushkoff:

“Most of these guys that we think are going to save us are actually wishing for the apocalypse. This is not just something that they fear. It’s something that at this point they’re ready to bring on.”

The book came from a meeting between Rushkoff and five billionaires at a desert resort. The topic? How to survive the catastrophe they know is coming. More from Rushkoff:

“And they spent the rest of the hour asking me really to…test their survival strategies…Do we go underground? Do I get an island?….What about space? And we ended up spending the majority of the hour on the single question, How do I maintain control of my security force after my money is worthless?…..because they’ve all got this money, they’ve…contracted Navy SEALs to come out to their compounds. But then they’re thinking, well, what do we do if our money’s worthless, then why are the Navy SEALs not just going to kill us and take all the stuff?”

Remember the back-yard bomb shelters of the 1950s: With that threat, how big would you want your bomb shelter to be? How luxurious and well-guarded? If the world were destroyed, you would try to live in that shelter full-time. Same thing with these billionaires.

Think about it: They want to use 21st century technology to revive a 13th century social order and impose it on the land and people who live around their protected fortresses. Missing from the plans of tech billionaires? Ideas to stop authoritarianism, decrease inequality, heal social divides, or slow climate change. Rushkoff explains:

“Even if we call them genius technologists, most of them were plucked from college when they were freshmen….They came up with some idea in their dorm room before they’d taken history, or economics, or ethics, or philosophy classes, and so they lack the wisdom needed to oversee their own perverse amounts of wealth.”

So maybe we shouldn’t rely on these guys to protect our future. In fact, Rushkoff says that these people who have the most power to change our current trajectory have no interest in doing so.

At this point in human history, making money is all that matters. In capitalist societies your worth is directly correlated to how much money you have. Everybody understands this. Billionaires are the most prominent symptom, but they aren’t the disease. Capitalism is the disease.

Time to wake up America! There is absolutely zero downside to relieving these people of a big slice of their wealth and putting it toward rehabbing our society. To help you wake up, watch, and listen to Carlos and Cindy Blackman Santana lead a Playing for Change global group of musicians in “Oye Como Va”:

Facebooklinkedinrss