You've probably heard that the Residential Administration is changing the eligibility rules for he Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which will result in loss of benefits for an estimated 700,000 people. In a nutshell, the rule will make it more difficult for states to waive the work requirement, which is that "nondisabled" adults have to work at least 20 hours a week to be eligible. The ostensible rationale is that a lot of people who could be working are lazing around and that if they lose their SNAP benefits they'll get off the couch and get a job.
This is actually bullshit. The people we are talking about may not be certified as disabled but they are generally economically very marginal, maybe lacking a high school diploma; having undiagnosed disabilities, or mental or physical limitations short of getting an official ruling of disability; living in pockets of high unemployment. Many of them are in fact working as much as they can but they have part-time, non-steady jobs that don't consistently give them 20 hours a week of work. Experiments with this policy at the state level have shown that it does not in fact lead to increased employment, it just leads to hunger.
It turns out there's a back story. This is the culmination of a nearly decade-long effort by an organization called the Foundation for Government Accountability, which is funded by billionaires who want to take everything they can away from poor people. Now why do you think so many billionaires want to do that?
10 comments:
It continually goes back to something Cervantes has written about recently: in order to be a modern-day congressional Republican, [my words here --->] you have to be a gutless, soulless, racist sonofabitch.
The Republican party must be destroyed. It is anti-human, anti-Earth, anti-life (how ironic!). It is spurred by the Thanatos urge, nothing more, nothing less.
For Drumpf and much of the GOP base the arbitrary cruelty it the entire point of the operation. For their bazillionaire overlords it remains as it has always been: wage suppression.
I try to understand what the FGA and their supporters think they have to gain by cutting off money for food. In the grand scheme of things, not a huge amount of money is involved. Either they just want bodies to work the low wage, low skilled jobs (which WOULD help to line their pockets) or they sincerely think they are doing something good. If these people think they are doing good by cutting off food access to poor people, how many steps away are they from euthanasia? Soylent Green, anyone?
I went to the FGA website and watched one of the videos. (Former) Governor Scott Walker. He was giving a speech about work, and how proud people are to work and earn money. I think the last real job he had was "flipping burgers at McDonalds".
There is no way around it: Scott Walker is, as a human being, a harmful, willfully ignorant, dishonest bastard. As usual--with Republicans--the amazing and tragic thing is how many people can be manipulated to vote for someone like him.
If work is such a sacred value then why is the money you get for actually working taxed at a higher rate than the money you get that you didn't work for (capital gains and a few other sources of income treated as capital gains)?
Chucky,
Taxation policies also manage the economy by favoring certain industries and activities. In this case, the lower tax rate of income treated as capital gains stimulates investment and risk-taking.
Another aspect is the US must be competitive in their tax rates with other nations or investment capital will go elsewhere where profits will taxed less.
Many people believe this but it isn't true. It sounds logical, but empirical research shows no connection between the rate of taxation on capital gains and investment. The top capital gains tax rate declined from 28 percent in 1987, to 20 percent in 1997, and then 15 percent in 2003 (and 0 percent for individuals in lower tax brackets), but household savings rates steadily fell as well. Most high risk investments are made by institutions not subject to the capital gains tax. Ronald Reagan actually equalized the capital gains and income tax rates. The fact is, people will invest if they can make a profit. Even if a portion of the profit is taxed, they'd still rather take what they can get than leave their money idle. If anything they'd be inclined to invest more, if you think about it.
As for international comparisons, U.S. taxes are actually considerably lower than taxes in competing companies.
Yes, US corporate tax rates are now considerably lower thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. A flat rate of 21% for the US.
Previously, rates were 15-35%, among the highest. Those higher rates are why corporate inversions were so frequent before the 2017 tax reform, locating headquarters to nations with lower rates such as Ireland with 12.5%.
Not really. The effective corporate tax rate was much lower than the nominal rate because of all sorts of tax breaks. But inversions did indeed happen. Nevertheless corporations nominally based abroad still have to pay taxes on profits made in the U.S., although they can find ways to book them abroad. Basically corporations have lots of ways to avoid taxes. The hope was the so-called TCJA was going to encourage corporations to repatriate profits but it didn't happen.
Participating in a race to the bottom is never a winning strategy.
The fact that corporations did participate in the inversions demonstrates there was a financial advantage in legally relocating their headquarters to lower tax nations.
Another advantage of lower rates is fewer taxable entities will engage in avoidance schemes, legal or illegal.
There is an optimum rate for maximum collection of taxes. That's always been an interesting argument as to where the "sweet spot" is.
Post a Comment