Daniel Freilich's Blog
Posts Tagged ‘fairness’
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010
Wall Street is again thriving. Stocks are bullish. Finance managers are cashing in. Executive bonuses are flourishing. Sushi, wine, fashion, and BMWs are being bought. Things are looking good again for the elite.
But most Americans are not thriving. They don’t have expendable income to have invested in stocks or they already sold at a loss to pay bills. Many are unemployed with no prospect of a job. Many have no health insurance. Many are having wages eroded, with lower wages per se, fewer hours, and/or lesser benefits. Those with health insurance are finding higher deductibles and copayments. Employers claim to ‘provide coverage’, but less and less is covered, in effect, lowering wages.
Monthly bills for basic services pile up on kitchen tables. Families decide which one not to pay each month. Even if bills are paid, they do not save, precluding ‘moving up’. College education expenses are soaring so many give up and use high school diplomas for unskilled service jobs.
Our leaders could solve structural issues to help middle class Americans ‘pick themselves up by the boot straps’. So their pain is needless. But no. Our leaders are not in any hurry. Why should they be? They are paid off by corporations and part of the quid pro quo of the campaign contributions is an expectation they will turn a blind eye.
Senator Leahy is the second most senior member of the U.S. Senate. He could use his power to fight for the middle class. But no. He is content to throw a few crumbs to appease the masses without meaningful reform. He has an opportunity to fight for middle class tax cuts. But to do so, he would have to fight to pay for them by removing tax loopholes for the rich. That would anger the rich and powerful who fund his campaign. So no. Won’t happen.
He had an opportunity to fight for national health insurance last year, a reform that would improve the economic plight of the middle class and provide career flexibility. The stimulus to the economy would enable millions of jobs by increasing business competitiveness. It would be the best ‘jobs bill’ possible. But it would require angering the health-related companies that fund his campaign. So no. Didn’t happen. Incremental reform will have to suffice.
Hey there establishment. We’re coming after you. We are not going to take it anymore.
Tags: conflict of interest, Corruption, Daniel Freilich, equity, fairness, Healthcare is a human right, income tax, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Vermont
Posted in Health care reform, Leadership, Taxation | No Comments »
Saturday, June 12th, 2010
After speaking at a S Burlington AFL-CIO meeting last week, I saw and heard Senator Leahy speak in person for the first time. My reaction, pity, surprised me, but reinforced the rationale for my challenging the 35-year incumbent.
I spoke about our economy, jobs, healthcare, and our energy/environment crisis, exemplified by the Gulf oil spill disaster. I talked about “fairness, reasonableness, equity, sustainability, and honorable service”. I elaborated about “needless pain” and necessity to work towards economic equity with progressive taxation and national health insurance.
I lamented about the existential, security, economic, and quality-of-life threats of our energy/environment policies. I expounded that the U.S. had ‘lost its groove’ (Thomas Friedman) and about need to commit to cessation of oil importation and transformation to a green non-carbon economy. I compared the national endeavor to the industrial and information revolutions, our equivalent of the Greatest Generation’s call.
I emphasized need to combat apathy and cynicism and revitalize our democracy by requiring better ethical standards for elected officials, whether required by law or not. The words “personal responsibility” were iterated, not insisting on lofty unrealistic tenets…just those already required of non-elected officials. Commitment to term limits, minimizing conflicts of interest by declining campaign funds from Special Interests, and putting Country ahead of Party by not ‘automatically caucasing’, was urged.
In contrast, the incumbent repeated stories about his personal history and successes. He discussed tactical issues related to current Congressional bills. He noted his first Special Interests campaign funding and the $1 billion in “stimulus” money he brought to Vermont. Jeff Potvin (AFL-CIO) subsequently clarified that most of the funds went to contractors, little to workers, continuing the time-honored process of the “rich getting richer”.
What made me feel pity for the Senator was absence of broad vision, neither acknowledgment of the dramatic strategic national and global problems we face, nor solutions. The Senator had ‘lost his groove’, as America has. Financial pain of many Americans, the Gulf, global warming, economic collapse, war…nothing really.
Mr. Leahy had clearly been living in the Senate microcosm for too long. I recalled similar conversations with friends/colleagues in which preoccupation with tactical minutia confirmed loss of big picture, ‘there too long’, and ‘time to move on’.
The experience confirmed the insight of the American people who simply want old guard management out and new leadership in ‘to get our groove back’ before it is too late.
Tags: conflict of interest, Daniel Freilich, equity, fairness, Green revolution, personal responsibility, Senator Patrick Leahy
Posted in Leadership | No Comments »
Friday, February 26th, 2010
The New York Times ran an article recently summarizing the following stats about upper uppper upper income individuals in the U.S.:
–400 tax payers had an average income of $345 million/year.
–Their average federal tax burden was 16.6%.
I did some simple back of the envelope type math.
The tax revenue from these tax payers then was $22,908,000,000.
But what if their income was taxed like most Americans with earned income without the usual breaks afforded high income earners (regressive payroll tax rates, low capital gains tax rates, etc.)? For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume ALL of their income was taxed at 35% (the current highest marginal tax rate for income taxes)–admittedly, these tax payers would be taxed at lower rates for the first few tax brackets but this over simplification should not have a significant effect on the overall calculation and point. There are deductions that would also lower the actual tax burden too but for simplicity I didn’t calculate these right now. I also didn’t include theoretical effects of raising taxes on high income earners (while lowering taxes on middle income earners) on GDP and therefore on tax revenue (Laffer curve enthusiasts etc…).
At a 35% tax rate, more commensurate with tax rates earned income Americans are used to, these tax payers might have paid $48,300,000,000, providing potential for an additional $25,392,000,000 in revenue to the treasury. Thus, the regressive nature of our federal tax system resulted in loss of about $25 billion dollars in revenue from ONLY 400 tax payers. Can you imagine how much more revenue is lost from high income individuals in the U.S. who are taxed at a similarly unfairly low rate? No wonder property taxes are so high in Vermont. The State needs revenue from somewhere and high income earners are not paying their fair share to the federal government…resulting in low distributions to States.
Such observations demonstrate why we need tax reform in the U.S., returning fair and reasonable progressivity to federal taxation. It is simply unequitable for hard working Americans to be paying 28-35% federal income taxes, while extremely wealthy Americans end up paying little in federal taxes!
We should:
1. Increase progressivity to the federal income tax (increase the upper marginal tax rate from the current 35% to 50%).
2. Add progressivity to the long term capital gains tax so low and middle income earners might be able to garner some benefit from this capital investment incentive of the federal government.
3. Add progressivity to payroll (FICA) taxes–Medicare, Social Security. That responsibility for supporting Social Security ends at $106,800 is so cynical, it is almost laughable. Social Security withholdings should apply to income above this amount too so the burden of supporting Social Security is borne fairly by all. FICA taxes should be applied to all forms of income as well, not just income taxes.
4. Eliminate and/or reduce the tax exclusion for employer-based health insurance for high income earners.
5. Tax hedge fund income as ‘earned income’ (income tax rates).
6. Divide the increased revenue as follows: One third–allocate towards LOWERING income tax rates on middle income earners; one third–allocate towards debt reduction; and one third–allocate to other social services.
Tags: capital gains tax, fairness, income tax, payroll tax, Progressive taxation, revenue
Posted in Taxation | No Comments »
| 
