Robert Reich points out something with which I might agree with Rick Perry:
"On average, citizens of states with strong Republican majorities get back more from the federal government than they pay in. Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47, Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12.
On the other hand, fiscal secession would be a boon to most blue states. The citizens of California – harder hit by the recession than most – receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in. Massachusetts, 82 cents. Michigan, 92 cents. Oregon, 98 cents.
In other words, blue states are subsidizing red states. The federal government is like a giant sump pump – pulling dollars out of liberal enclaves like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon – and sending them to conservative places like Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Old South."
And that doesn't even include my state, New Jersey, which is dead last by getting only 61 cents for every dollar we send the federal government in income taxes. Please Rick Perry, save us from those Red State Leeches!!
Showing posts with label Robert Reich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Reich. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Friday, September 3, 2010
Reich: How to End the Great Recession
Former Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote a very informative op-ed in the New York Times. One passage that initially seemed like a partisan argument but proved to be an insightful observation was:
In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.
It’s no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. I do not mean to suggest that such astonishing consolidations of income at the top directly cause sharp economic declines. The connection is more subtle.
The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.
In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.
It’s no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. I do not mean to suggest that such astonishing consolidations of income at the top directly cause sharp economic declines. The connection is more subtle.
The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Corporate Profits = Jobs? No, not really (but CEO's want you to think that's true.)
In a column on his website, RobertReich.org, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration and current professor at UC-Berkeley Robert Reich writes about why corporate profits have nothing to do with job growth. The one point he made that jumped out at me was the following:
“Corporations are using their pile of money to pay dividends to their shareholders and buy back their own stock - thereby pushing up share prices.”
This is something I have noticed for years. I always wondered why companies that reported consistent quarterly profits from 2004-2007 always tended to have more downsizing periods than hiring periods. They're boosting the income of their higher end shareholders at the expense of their much lower-end employees that have to scrape by to make ends meet in this job market of exploited employees.
This has always been my personal argument against the Bush Tax Cuts as well. I have no problem with wealthy individuals getting a tax break so long as they’re creating jobs with those tax breaks. If a job is being created, let them get the tax credit for it. I still don’t get the argument that tax cuts spur job growth and tax revenue through the actions of that multi-millionaire takes the extra $50,000 or $60,000 in his pocket each year and buys his 2nd or 3rd yacht with it rather than hire a new employee for $30,000 a year.
“Corporations are using their pile of money to pay dividends to their shareholders and buy back their own stock - thereby pushing up share prices.”
This is something I have noticed for years. I always wondered why companies that reported consistent quarterly profits from 2004-2007 always tended to have more downsizing periods than hiring periods. They're boosting the income of their higher end shareholders at the expense of their much lower-end employees that have to scrape by to make ends meet in this job market of exploited employees.
This has always been my personal argument against the Bush Tax Cuts as well. I have no problem with wealthy individuals getting a tax break so long as they’re creating jobs with those tax breaks. If a job is being created, let them get the tax credit for it. I still don’t get the argument that tax cuts spur job growth and tax revenue through the actions of that multi-millionaire takes the extra $50,000 or $60,000 in his pocket each year and buys his 2nd or 3rd yacht with it rather than hire a new employee for $30,000 a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)