Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Expanding Access to Higher Education

WM Oversight: Expanding Access to Higher Education and the Promise it Holds, June 29, 2021

When expanding access to higher education, the first step for many is completing the road to basic literacy and English fluency. Only then should the decision be made to forgo more advanced training and education. Many people have been underserved by the public system or have had to put working for survival ahead of school. We must fix that first, with the workforce development system being a good portal for the underserved to get started. From recent current comments on the Budget:

President’s Budget: Support workforce development; provide four additional years of free education. Make historic investments in education. 

Local welfare programs will channel clients to appropriate educational programs (with no legal residency requirement), training through workforce investment boards or other social services. One Stop programs should really be handled in one stop. Programs, both public, private and sectarian, should be funded by a state-level employer-paid subtraction VAT. They will include the following

  • English as a Second Language
  • Expanded Job Corps
  • General Education Degree preparation
  • Technical and vocational training
  • Psychiatric and occupational rehabilitation programs 
  • Community College and the first two years of four year programs to an Associate's Degree or through sophomore year 

All of the above should include a stipend at the minimum wage pending satisfactory performance and be tuition free). Education providers will be the conduit to tax benefits and any other state or federal subsidies.

Medicaid for poor families should be distributed, where possible, through the health insurance plan of their educational providers or the plan for state and local government employees. SNAP payments should be abolished, as well as TANF, except for people who cannot be enrolled in another program. For these, SNAP must include a cash benefit, thus ending the incentive to sell food stamps in order to buy toilet paper or gasoline.

The rest of higher education should include seeking career employment rather than parental support. This helps future professionals to have their education support their careers, although simply finishing an education is a good in itself. Regardless, students at all phases must receive support for their families if they have children and have their opportunity costs met - meaning that attending school after their age cohort has passed the sophomore year in high school should be paid at least at the minimum wage (if not higher for in-demand careers).

If employer-paid education with a service commitment attached is included, there must be a program to turn tuition (but not living) costs to a federal loan should employment not work out. Such loans should have no interest costs, but assistance in finding a job must be provided so that the loan will be repaid.

Graduate school should also be an employer-paid arrangement, with the same federal loan option during transition to a future employer.

As mentioned above, an employer-paid federal subtraction value added tax is the ideal vehicle for family support and health care. A state level S-VAT would be used for additional family support in high-cost states, as well as for the funding of educational costs up to sophomore year of college. Younger students would be funded through the public system or their parent’s employers. Independent students would receive social benefits through their education providers (including pay) with state and federal government funding, with the federal S-VAT paid by the training provider used as the conduit for family support and healthcare. 

The following text is from our Tax Reform Attachment:

Subtraction Value-Added Tax (S-VAT). These are employer paid Net Business Receipts Taxes. S-VAT is a vehicle for tax benefits, including

Health insurance or direct care, including veterans' health care for non-battlefield injuries and long term care. 

Employer paid educational costs in lieu of taxes are provided as either employee-directed contributions to the public or private unionized school of their choice or direct tuition payments for employee children or for workers (including ESL and remedial skills). Wages will be paid to students to meet opportunity costs.  

Most importantly, a refundable child tax credit at median income levels (with inflation adjustments)  distributed with pay. 

Subsistence level benefits force the poor into servile labor. Wages and benefits must be high enough to provide justice and human dignity. This allows the ending of state administered subsidy programs and discourages abortions, and as such enactment must be scored as a must pass in voting rankings by pro-life organizations (and feminist organizations as well). To assure child subsidies are distributed, S-VAT will not be border adjustable.

We discussed the Child Tax Credit in our comments on the President’s Budget, which I repeat here.

President's Budget: Extend key tax benefits for lower- and middle-income workers and families. The child tax credit level passed in the American Recovery Act should be made permanent and doubled, with distribution through private sector payrolls, unemployment insurance benefits, emergency benefits for families and paid participation in educational programs.

There are two avenues to distribute money to families. The first is to add CTC benefits to unemployment, retirement, educational (TANF and college) and disability benefits. The CTC should be high enough to replace survivor’s benefits for children. 

The second is to distribute them with pay through employers. This can be done with long term tax reform, but in the interim can be accomplished by having employers start increasing wages immediately to distribute the credit to workers and their families, allowing them to subtract these payments from their quarterly corporate or income tax bills.

For working families with children, a huge obstacle to continuing education is child care. Again, form our budget comments:

President’s Budget: Make critical investments in child careChildcare is best provided by the employer or the employee-owned or cooperative firm.On-site care, with separate spaces for well and sick children, as well as an on-site medical site for sick employees, will uncomplicate the morning and evening routine. Making yet another stop in an already busy schedule adds to the stress of the day. Knowing that, if problems arise, parents can be right there, will help workers focus on work.

Larger firms and government agencies can more easily provide such facilities. Indeed, in the Reeves Center of the District Government, such a site already exists. When the crisis is over, a staff visit would prove illuminating. Smaller firms could make arrangements with the landlord of the building where offices or stores are located, including retail districts and shopping malls. For security reasons, these would only serve local workers, but not retail customers.

Finally, it goes without saying that access to higher education will include services to Veterans, although conversely, access to higher education should be wide enough so that one does not have to volunteer for service to receive it.

Thursday, June 24, 2021

DoD FY 2022

 HBUD: DoD FY 2022 ,June 24, 2021

President’s Budget: Make global leadership a priority. 

From June 9th: We must add rebuilding the Diplomatic Corps, which was savaged by the prior Administration. Every effort should be made to investigate what really happened with the “perfect phone call.” It may have been the perfect cover-up for a Kremlin led plan to cut military aid to Ukraine, with Mr. Giuliani and Secretary Pompeo acting as the President’s handlers rather than his agents. Provisions should be made to investigate where presidential discretion ends and foreign agency begins.

Leadership does not mean starting another Cold War or finding a new mission to keep the defense sector well funded. In the First Bush Administration, Defense Guidance laid out a grand strategy for making enemies in the Middle East. Essentially, it was the Domino Theory in reverse. Let us learn from our mistakes. 

Looking to Iran for help in stabilizing Afghanistan would be an act of national maturity on our part. The Taliban has been emboldened by our exit and had not qualms about shooting at us while we were there. They would not take such liberties if the Republican Guard was protecting women and girls in Afghanistan and enforcing the peace. Many in Afghanistan are ethnically Persian, so such a move makes sense. It will also keep their military occupied.

In general, boundary changes should be sought. Whether our leadership is helpful, given the events of the past, may not allow us to facilitate such an effort. This brings us to Gaza. It was only retained because settlers lived there. With the settlers gone, it should be returned to Egypt. Any two-state solution must respect any desire for Israeli Arabs to join with Palestinians to form a second state. Any such state should be free to join a larger Arab state, rather than to function as a vassal state. A one-state solution must leave Arab and Palestinian citizens of Israel with full political rights with no preconditions.

President’s Budget: Meeting National Defense Needs. 

From June 9th: In general, we recommend that non-strategic air and ground units based in CONUS be funded from the goods and services tax, while sea, overseas (OCO) operations and veterans benefits be funded with asset VAT and higher tier employer-paid subtraction VAT revenues, which will also fund net interest and paying down the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Please see our June 9th comments for more information on our tax reform proposals.

Essentially, federal defense spending which benefits the homeland will be paid by American taxpayers, but not by exports. The current regime can be seen as an unconstitutional export tax. Department of Defense product and logistic commands will be funded based on where units are assigned and based. Strategic systems will be nationally funded.

Overseas deployments and war are generally put on the national credit card. It is generally better to tax higher income individuals rather than paying them interest instead. The cash flows are the same, but taxation means that the cash need not be paid back at interest

We agree that major changes in funding should wait while defense policy is re-evaluated. In most years, funding is stable due to the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System used by the Department. It takes a lot to steer this ship and it is good that the Administration is conscientiously preparing for a change in course.

In April of 2019, we submitted comments to the Senate Budget Committee on the FY 2020 Defense Budget. We have since found out that they not only don’t print comments, they don’t accept them. At least this committee has an e-mail contact, so we hope that these comments will be distributed and printed. Most of our main points are addressed here, including and especially examining how programs in relation to taxes collected, regional deployments and the budget process. 

These comments included an analysis of how defense spending compares with civil appropriations. From FY 2020: The National Priorities publishes a pie chart of discretionary spending which lumped the entire defense budget into a 57% slice.. Attachment Two offers a more detailed perspective on how departmental spending subtotals relate to size of civilian departments, including when grouped for comparable analysis to DoD as a whole.

One of the benefits of a stable defense profile is that this table is still relatively accurate and can again be found in the second attachment. As we recalibrate our defense needs, we need to reconsider how we fund NASA, especially how its funds are appropriated.

President’s Budget: Strengthens American leadership in science, technology, and innovation. 

June 9th: NASA funding can generally be regarded as an overseas deployment. It should be funded through the defense research and acquisition appropriations. This allows for a new “peace dividend” without loss of the military industrial base. Defense contractor human resources are not readily transferred to the civilian sector. One such effort is research on Closed Loop Environmental Support Systems. Doing so could provide alternate means of agriculture, water treatment and home building. It ends the problem of population, conceivably on a worldwide basis.

This change ends the need for the defense industry to encourage the purchase (and use) of the weapons of war. Given the admission that UAB’s may be extraterrestrial in nature, or a planetary technology that we do not understand, research and development in aerospace should be maintained. Firing weapons at UABs is not advisable, so a peacetime agency should be engaged in this research. One year ago, the concept of investigating extraterrestrial visits would not have found its way into anyone’s comments on national security.

NASA spending has much room to grow and shifting it to Defense Appropriations gives it more room to ask for more funding. Eventually, recent progress in private sector space services and management will end the need for a NASA budget. 

To get us to that point, we must spend more money, not less. If we bring more to the table, multinational cooperation can be ramped up as well. This is an essential part of our relationship with the Russian space agency as we reset our foreign policy in the post-Trump era.

President’s Budget: End the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) loophole

June 9th: Overseas deployments and war are generally put on the national credit card. It is generally better to tax higher income individuals rather than paying them interest instead. The cash flows are the same, but taxation means that the cash need not be paid back at interest. 

The OCO fund, along with the usual 10% for rounding that shows up in the budget only when examined in detail, serves three functions. It provides a way to fund programs that should not be talked about for security reasons. As a former program control officer, I can assure the Committee that DoD watches every penny. 

Overseas spending needs to be part of the base budget, but with improved visibility of how funds are deployed to protect allies and insure the freedom of the seas. This gives us an idea of how much of spending is on preparedness and how much is spent on actual deployments. Knowing more helps us find a necessary balance. Regional balance also deserves attention.

In our testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittees, we called for regional reporting of appropriations in the Committee Reports for that appropriation. This should be the case with DoD as well, with strategic nuclear components NOT reported regionally, Alaska, Pacific, Central and European deployments counted as OCONUS and materiel command activities assigned to the units that they support rather than to where items are produced or procured.

Please see the first attachment for details on this reporting, as well as on necessary changes to the budget and appropriations process - which is still broken - as well as the possibility of regionally based appropriations passed by regional subcommittees.

President’s Budget - Ensure NDD components of national security fulfill their roles

Any funding to prevent stove-piping is helpful. I suggest setting up a classified network (with no Internet connection) to link civilian and military intelligence, homeland security, national security and diplomatic personnel with the same areas of responsibility with an emphasis on open communication and thinking outside of the box. Management turf protection is the chief inhibitor of the free flow of information. Culture change is as important as budgeting.

The story of the last few years is the story of DoD budget officials doing their jobs. The “perfect phone call” was likely a ruse to hide the defunding of assistance to Ukraine for the benefit of Russia’s regional ambitions.  I trust that the Eastern District of New York’s investigation into these events will find what was designed to be hidden. What will we do so that nothing like the Trump reign of treason happens again. In July of 2020, I addressed the question of prosecuting Citizen Trump for treason rather than election interference. This analysis bears repeating here:

The question is then what and why are we investigating? The only Trump crime of any consequence is fealty to Putin. No one cares about campaign dirty tricks and they are not being prosecuted. If the Trump-Putin relationship falls under foreign policy discretion, what are we doing here? Why does anyone bother lying? Put another way, if Trump went to DC Federal Courthouse and detailed everything he actually did, what crime was committed?

Unless we face the question of espionage by Trump, this national soap opera is a sad farce on both sides. Unless the message about the Trump presidency does not go that deep, no Trumpsters will give up on their hero. This must be explained as more than partisanship on both sides. Not doing so is why impeachment failed.  If Schiff  cannot or will not point to an actual non-partisan crime, then half the nation will believe this has all been a witch hunt. That is not a good look for the nation. Indeed, it does exactly what Putin wants.

Allowing Russia a zone of influence near its borders (a Monroe Doctrine, if you will) is not an idea originating with Trump. Is his presidential discretion wide enough to pursue such a policy, regardless of past doctrine?  This is another way of asking whether we wish to criminalize American foreign policy?

We tried in Iran-Contra, however the investigation led to the overturn of Lt. Col. North's criminal conviction. The question remains, was violating the Boland Amendment a crime or a secret foreign policy?

The Ukraine affair is of a similar nature - although the system worked well enough to make sure the military aid was spent. The purported crime was election interference, but that interference would have, at worst, been one day event on Fox News. It amounts to a dirty trick, and a sloppy one at that.

The real issue with Ukraine is whether election interference was just the cover story, with Trump's real intention being to hang Ukraine out to dry and force a pro-Moscow settlement. Would doing so have been a crime or an act of presidential discretion. While the impeachment trial hinted at treasonous intent, it was not pursued convincingly enough for Republicans to have to vote to remove.

Some may even conclude that Senator Schumer and Chairman Schiff took a dive, that the entire impeachment was, essentially, an electoral stunt all its own - one that far exceeds the 15 minutes of fame on Fox News had the Ukrainian President been more cooperative.

President Bush took a pass at arresting Vice President Cheney when he attempted to force his own policy on torture on the Justice Department - who objected and went to the President. There is also the matter of war crimes ordered by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The Geneva Convention was not observed at Gitmo. The war may or may not have been about WMD. Regardless, Rummy lost the peace by firing all Baath party officers from the Iraqi Army, thus destroying the existing civil society in Iraq. When the Baathists fled to Syria, they just may have taken the WMD with them. That chemical weapons were used in Syria should be no surprise to anyone who can connect the dots.

The 2006 election was about a few things, but the failure of the peace, as detailed by Bob  Woodward in a book that came out just before the election, had a big part in the loss (as did GOP corruption). There was a real push to hold the President (or the Vice President) responsible for the debacle, but Speaker Pelosi would not go there. Doing so would have criminalized foreign policy.

Where do we draw the line once we open Pandora's Box? Iran-Contra was played as a rogue operation by the National Security Advisor and his Deputy. By that time, Reagan's dementia was likely far enough advanced that he had no involvement - and no one asked whether Vice President Bush was in the loop. This has always vexed me. History may provide an answer when we are all dead or we may never know…

...If Trump is a traitor, it should be examined, but this will have implications for future presidents, including a future President Schiff.

The question of whether Bin Laden was assassinated rather than being captured has criminal implications. Others have raised the question of the targeting of an American citizen who was part of Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula. Most come down on the side of presidential discretion. If we criminalize foreign policy, could it boomerang on our best president since Ike?

The nation must grapple with this issue and it must do so now. It goes beyond the President’s Budget request.

President’s Budget: Support needed reforms in the justice system. 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice needs an update. The law is moving forward in the civilian world and the military must follow suit. While cannabis use has no place when deployed or in training, it should not be feared in all circumstances. Asking about past illegal activity should be removed from the Personal Security Questionnaire. Any questioning should be used to identify mental health needs and accommodations. It should not be used as a proxy for personal conservatism.

In general, punishment should be replaced with treatment for alcohol related or fueled offenses. Offenders should be allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity. Mental health incarceration should be for the current minimum term and should continue as long as the member needs such attention for long term care. They should not be discharged early, passing the problem to others. Standards of commitment should be adjusted so that relapse on substances or non-compliance with treatment plans should be grounds for rehospitalization.

Trump should be allowed to plead the same thing for most of his alleged crimes. It is the best way to lower the national temperature.

President’s Budget: Fulfill the sacred obligation to our veterans. 

From June: In recent decades, the problem of veteran disability determinations has remained troubling, with the Pandemic complicating processing. When a job gets too big to manage with staff, two options remain - contract out as much work as possible, including consolidating case files and making easy determinations - and sharing responsibility for processing with the Department of Defense. The handoff from DoD to DVA should be seamless. 

The mental health and housing needs of veterans, both recent and lingering, is endemic. This is another area where coordination with DoD would prove helpful. This help must go beyond management and computer systems and include the human element of soldiers, veterans using services and those who need services can interact on a less formal, but not unprogrammed basis.

President’s Budget: Make critical investments in child care.

From June 9th: Childcare is best provided by the employer or the employee-owned or cooperative firm.On-site care, with separate spaces for well and sick children, as well as an on-site medical site for sick employees, will uncomplicate the morning and evening routine. Making yet another stop in an already busy schedule adds to the stress of the day. Knowing that, if problems arise, parents can be right there, will help workers focus on work.

Larger firms and government agencies can more easily provide such facilities. Indeed, in the Reeves Center of the District Government, such a site already exists. 

This should be the case in more DoD facilities, especially the Pentagon. Especially for civilian team members. Also, coffee should be free. To require coffee clubs to be formed is petty.

Attachment: Committee Reports

Attachment:Shares of the Discretionary Budget, Senate DoD FY 2020, April 9, 2020





Wednesday, June 16, 2021

FY 2022 President's Budget

House Budget: President's Budget FY 2022, June 9, 2011

Finance: President’s FY 2022 Budget, June 16, 2021

WM: President's FY 2022 Budget, June 17, 2021

Ensure big corporations pay their fair share. Corporate income taxes would be discontinued and replaced by an employer-paid subtraction value added tax on all businesses, thus taxing both labor and capital at the same rate for the first tier, with a proposed rate between 13% and 20%. No net revenue would be collected. Rather, this tax would fund an expanded refundable child tax credit at more generous than the President’s proposal, as well as health care costs for employees and their families. Some employers will overpay, while others will get a refund. Higher tier salary taxation will be collected with this tax.

A matching state tax would supplement the child tax credit in higher cost states, while providing funds for education through the junior college and vocational levels. States would collect both state and federal taxes. These items will be discussed below.

End tax loopholes for the wealthy. Provide the IRS with the resources it needs to crack down on wealthy tax cheats and improve taxpayer services. In general, we propose ending personal income taxation for all but the wealthiest taxpayers. The threshold for salary taxation will be $85,000, however it will be collected by employers with tax rates ranging from 12.5 % to 25% at and above $340,000 per year. Personal salary taxation will begin at $425,000 at 12.5%, increasing to 25% at $680,000, for an overall rate of 50% from both revenue streams. The salary surtax could be remitted in advance by purchasing tax prepayment bonds. This would reduce future net interest costs, which are the main driver of future budget imbalance. 

The largest loophole for the wealthy is not mentioned in the President's Budget.  If there is a third rail in income taxation that mirrors the third rail in Social Security, this is it. The largest boon to the wealthy is the exclusion of mutual funds from payment of capital gains and income taxation. This ensures the accumulation of wealth by the rich at the expense of everyone else. By our calculations, 28% of mutual fund (and bond) assets are held by the top 1,450 families. Over half of these assets are held by the top 0.01%. The bottom 90% hold only 23% of such assets, and many of these are likely held by well-off retirees.

Shifting taxation to an asset value added tax from personal income taxation at 25% (which is the rate currently being discussed in budget negotiations) would tax capital gains, dividends at distribution, and interest at distribution. Rental and real property assets will be taxed at the state level.  The federal tax would be remitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, while states would collect rental income monthly and capital gains taxes at closing.

Asset VAT would be marked to market (not gain) at option exercise and at the first sale after inheritance, gift and donation. The estate tax would be repealed. Family businesses  and assets would not have to be sold to pay estate taxes, but once the family business is sold, any advantage will be ended. There will be no loopholes, save one, and no need for extra audit resources. The only loophole would be zero rating sales to qualified Employee Stock Ownership Plans.

Cash inheritances would not be taxed, but because a goods and services taxes will be established (increased minimum wages and child tax credits will hold the working class harmless), heirs will no longer evade taxation forever. Most tax dodges, such as large insurance policies, will lose their allure.

Instead of an internationally agreed upon corporate minimum tax corporate income tax, asset VAT rates will be coordinated so that international market shifting will not occur based on tax rates.

Note to Republican Members: President Bush 41 was not denied a second term because he went back on his no new taxes pledge. Indeed, the 1990 Tax Act began the period of growth in the 1990s, which were accelerated by President Clinton. As we come out of the COVID recession, higher taxes on the wealthy are desirable, and will occur. 

Build world-class transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure should not be paid for by the rich. Such funding is not sustainable over time. Increased motor fuel taxes, with a return to projects coordinated between members of Congress and local governments, is the traditional approach until the late-Senator McCain led the charge against “pork barrel” funding. The reality was the high taxes were considered tolerable when paired with bringing home the bacon. Even Congressman Ron Paul realized, at my urging, that agreed upon spending was preferable to spending based entirely in the federal contracting and grant sectors.

Motor vehicle fuel prices are generally inelastic to about $4.00 per gallon or more. Taxes that result in fuel taxes below that point will not affect revenue. Paired with improvements in public transit, the emission of greenhouse gases, as well as more acute emissions, will be served by higher prices.

Market manipulation of oil prices in the New York Mercantile Exchange is not unheard of. Indeed, it likely had a cause in the Great Recession, as oil traders tried to tap mortgage backed securities when prices dropped due to the examination of market practices by Congress. The deregulation undertaken by Mr. Mulvaney in his service (if that is what you want to call it) at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau undid the market reforms enacted in Dodd-Frank. Restoring these reforms must be a priority.

With the rise of electric vehicles, some form of mileage based tax is appropriate, although developing it is problematic. We must raise gas taxes first while we develop the concept. 

Invest in research and development (R&D) and cutting-edge technologies to spur American innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Strengthen American leadership in science, technology, and innovation. NASA funding can generally be regarded as an overseas deployment. It should be funded through the defense research and acquisition appropriations. This allows for a new “peace dividend” without loss of the military industrial base. Defense contractor human resources are not readily transferred to the civilian sector. One such effort is research on Closed Loop Environmental Support Systems. Doing so could provide alternate means of agriculture, water treatment and home building. It ends the problem of population, conceivably on a worldwide basis.

This change ends the need for the defense industry to encourage the purchase (and use) of the weapons of war. Given the admission that UAB’s may be extraterrestrial in nature, or a planetary technology that we do not understand, research and development in aerospace should be maintained. Firing weapons at UABs is not advisable, so a peacetime agency should be engaged in this research. One year ago, the concept of investigating extraterrestrial visits would not have found its way into anyone’s comments on national security.

Invest in the knowledge, technologies, and actions needed to tackle the climate crisis and lead in the clean energy economy. A carbon value added tax should fund improvements in technology. A VAT, rather than an embedded tax, allows consumers more information in making their consumption decisions. The possibilities for funding research have already been submitted to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. I suggest two initiatives: 

Fusion is a game changer and should be funded on a crash basis before we have to turn out the lights to avoid treading water. Helium-3 is promising and there is even some noise about cold fusion on a larger scale. Energy companies like how cheap coal is and how much cheaper and more popular natural gas is. Utilities (and even coal producers) need to be offered a way to hedge their bets. To move fusion, set up a public-private partnership to sink in more money in exchange for the right of first use. Any practical use of fusion will be big-industry. It was never going to be any other way. Funds should be increased for fusion now, with a promise of ever greater funding once industrial partnerships are created.

One use for such cheap power is a new transportation system. We can pilot this now, in cooperation with the Departments of Commerce and Transportation, automobile manufacturers, utility companies and eventually selected local governments. I described the project in my CJS appropriation testimony. 

To best utilize clean energy (even natural automated cars with central control (rather than their own AI) and energy distribution (rather than being hampered by economically damaging battery development). The latter is old technology, i.e., electric trains and buses. 

The same consortia that fund the project can be the backbone for implementing it. Individuals could own cars, while some would be for hire (with monitoring, but not drivers). Debit cards or a link to checking accounts would pay for the car itself (either to rent or own), the roadway and the use of energy and computer services. 

Prices would vary based on congestion and vehicles could be taken to a public transportation hub (which might be located at their children’s school), with the vehicle returning home empty or going to the next fare. If congestion is low, it may be affordable to drive to work. If it is high, prices for public transit and commuting would be adjusted accordingly. We can do this now. The technology is already available. We need only be willing.

Ensure high speed broadband reaches all Americans. Integrated electric car systems would include household data services, so adding xFinity and Cox to any development consortium is appropriate. Broadband services in remote areas and to poor households should be available to all, although they should be funded by state level property taxes and increased telecommunications fees for current subscribers.

Make transformative investments in a renewed electric grid and energy-related economic development. Energy infrastructure to power an integrated electric car system would also carry household energy that relies on an effective grid. We agree on all initiatives in the President’s Budget. These should eventually be funded by a carbon value added tax. Such a tax will be easier to pass with vigorous enforcement of environmental regulations, with punitive fines. Industry will beg for such alternatives. 

In the interim, while tax reform is in negotiations and development, these projects should be funded by increased debt (which is appropriate for capital projects), with increased taxation of the wealthy, both immediately and through asset value added and higher tier subtraction VAT in the longer term.

Improve public health by rebuilding clean drinking water infrastructure. This is an essential program,which should be implemented through EPA Clean Water Grants to poor neighborhoods. This should be supplemented with state level property taxes and water bills for wealthier neighborhoods and in the long term. In general, state property taxes would be tapped for construction of a portion of the electric vehicle program listed above. Water lines will also eventually be tied to any sprinkler system as well. If roof decks are included, storm water runoff would also be included, which would help local water systems.

State, cooperative and local property taxes would also fund public safety, with the state level employer-paid subtraction VAT funding human resource expenditures.

Revitalize American manufacturing and small businesses, creating economic and job growth across the country. From our usual comments on international trade: Consumption taxes could have a big impact on workers, industry and consumers. Enacting an I-VAT is far superior to a tariff. The more government costs are loaded onto an I-VAT the better. 

If the employer portion of Old Age and Survivors Insurance, as well as all of disability and hospital insurance are decoupled from income and credited equally and personal retirement accounts are not used,  there is no reason not to load them onto an I-VAT. This tax is zero rated at export and fully burdens imports.  

Let us look at small business more closely. The cure for franchising, which is designed to insulate large companies from inventory, property and organized labor risks, would be less attractive with enactment of an employer-paid subtraction value added tax. Large firms would want these tax benefits for themselves.  

Gig work and the misuse of 1099 employment would also be reduced, which will greatly decrease the number of small businesses as currently measured. Federalizing the enforcement of existing labor law and increasing both funding and fines for violation will also allow a focus on true small businesses. Aid to small businesses can then be focused to where it is needed.

Build and retrofit buildings across the country for energy efficiency and expanded housing options. Energy efficient buildings should include roof decks planted with grass (both roads and any other flat roof. This is another initiative which is best managed at the local level, funded by property taxes supplemented by grant support.

Invests $400 billion in home or community-based care for seniors and people with disabilities. Home and community-based care  should be funded by goods and services taxes as part of a newly created Medicare Part E. Senior Medicaid should be entirely federalized, with other clients insured through the President’s proposal for a public option. 

President Reagan’s New Federalism proposal would have removed Medicaid from state budgets in exchange for ending or block granting other federal programs. This was a good idea then and a better idea now. Medicaid Part E should be created to both relieve states and the District of Columbia (or Washington, Douglass Commonwealth) from providing Medicaid for Seniors and the Disabled and seeing to the enforcement of practice standards for nursing homes who receive these funds.

Support workforce development; provide four additional years of free education. Make historic investments in education. Local welfare programs will channel clients to appropriate educational programs (with no legal residency requirement), training through workforce investment boards or other social services. One Stop programs should really be handled in one stop. Programs, both public, private and sectarian, should be funded by a state-level employer-paid subtraction VAT. They will include the following

  • English as a Second Language
  • Expanded Job Corps
  • General Education Degree preparation
  • Technical and vocational training
  • Psychiatric and occupational rehabilitation programs 
  • Community College and the first two years of four year programs to an Associate's Degree or through sophomore year 

All of the above should include a stipend at the minimum wage pending satisfactory performance and be tuition free). Education providers will be the conduit to tax benefits and any other state or federal subsidies.

Medicaid for poor families should be distributed, where possible, through the health insurance plan of their educational providers or the plan for state and local government employees. SNAP payments should be abolished, as well as TANF, except for people who cannot be enrolled in another program. For these, SNAP must include a cash benefit, thus ending the incentive to sell food stamps in order to buy toilet paper or gasoline.

Make critical investments in child care. Childcare is best provided by the employer or the employee-owned or cooperative firm.On-site care, with separate spaces for well and sick children, as well as an on-site medical site for sick employees, will uncomplicate the morning and evening routine. Making yet another stop in an already busy schedule adds to the stress of the day. Knowing that, if problems arise, parents can be right there, will help workers focus on work.

Larger firms and government agencies can more easily provide such facilities. Indeed, in the Reeves Center of the District Government, such a site already exists. When the crisis is over, a staff visit would prove illuminating. Smaller firms could make arrangements with the landlord of the building where offices or stores are located, including retail districts and shopping malls. For security reasons, these would only serve local workers, but not retail customers.

These programs should be paid for with increased employer-paid subtraction value added taxes, with credits for companies that provide these benefits and higher taxes for those who do not. A tax on employers would help society share the pain for requiring paid leave. Firms that offer leave would receive a credit on their taxes (especially low wage firms.

Create universal paid family and medical leave. Not requiring sick leave has been justified by the reactionary sector that claims that in the end, the market will sort everything out.  The perception that doing the right thing makes a business non-competitive is the reason we enact minimum wage laws and should require mandatory leave. Because the labor product is almost always well above wages paid, few jobs are lost when this occurs. Higher wages simply reduce what is called the labor surplus, and not only by Marx. Any CFO who cannot calculate the current productive surplus will soon be seeking a job with adequate wages and sick leave.

The requirement that this be provided ends the calculation of whether doing so makes a firm non-competitive because all competitors must provide the same benefit. This applies to businesses of all sizes. If a firm is so precarious that it cannot survive this change, it is probably not viable without it.

Extend key tax benefits for lower- and middle-income workers and families. The child tax credit level passed in the American Recovery Act should be made permanent and doubled, with distribution through private sector payrolls, unemployment insurance benefits, emergency benefits for families and paid participation in educational programs.

There are two avenues to distribute money to families. The first is to add CTC benefits to unemployment, retirement, educational (TANF and college) and disability benefits. The CTC should be high enough to replace survivor’s benefits for children. 

The second is to distribute them with pay through employers. This can be done with long term tax reform, but in the interim can be accomplished by having employers start increasing wages immediately to distribute the credit to workers and their families, allowing them to subtract these payments from their quarterly corporate or income tax bills.

Deliver nutrition security to America’s vulnerable families. Increase the supply, quality, and affordability of rental housing. The best option for food security and low income housing is to increase incomes by increasing the minimum wage, increasing the child tax credit and monthly payments for old age, survivors and disability recipients. For the latter, rebasing past wages to wage increases will help, but shifting the employer contribution and disability insurance to funding with a border adjustable goods and services tax, crediting past and future contributions on an equal dollar basis (rather than as a match for the employee contribution. VAT funding means a larger tax base and easier rate increases.

Increasing the minimum wage to $10 wage should take effect immediately, phasing to $12. You can argue about a $15 or $18 minimum after the midterm elections. Higher minimum wages increase job growth, as lower wage employees spend every dime of the increase, as do higher wage workers below the middle-management level whose wages will also rise. Provisions should also be included in law to hold franchisers harmless if minimum wage increases impact their own livelihoods.

Strengthen public health infrastructure to enhance our ability to address existing and emerging threats. Let me add that federal medicine should not be siloed. Doctors in the Uniformed Public Health Service, the Military, Veterans Affairs, and those implementing a Medicare Part E should frequently communicate and be used to sharing information. They should also take over medical services for the border patrol. It goes without saying that funding must increase, as proposed (which I said anyway). 

We need to also pay attention to mistakes and organizational pathologies that made the COVID pandemic worse, such as treating the PPE needs like we were treating Ebola and missing critical cold symptoms that occurred to most as seasonal allergies, went a way for a week and when they recurred as serious disease were thought by patients to go away as they did the first time. Missing this was a fatal mistake. Talking about believing in science also tripped the alarms of many conservatives who do not trust such statements, which made the pandemic worse.

Support needed reforms in the justice system. Job one is to shift from correctional modalities to new methods featuring mental health, education (including ESL programs) and addiction medicine. Warehousing young males of any race, but particularly African-Americans multiplies societal pathologies. While some forms of illness, such as sexual violence and physical violence or murder may require higher security, others can be treated as patients rather than criminals.

This change would migrate to local law enforcement, i.e., policing. Respond to certain incidents (especially those involving mental illness or alcohol) with immediate dispatch of emergency medical teams. This would require more ambulances, more mental health facilities and a pause in applying restraints until medical personnel arrive.

Fulfill the sacred obligation to our veterans. In recent decades, the problem of veteran disability determinations has remained troubling, with the Pandemic complicating processing. When a job gets too big to manage with staff, two options remain - contract out as much work as possible, including consolidating case files and making easy determinations - and sharing responsibility for processing with the Department of Defense. The handoff from DoD to DVA should be seamless. 

The mental health and housing needs of veterans, both recent and lingering, is endemic. This is another area where coordination with DoD would prove helpful. This help must go beyond management and computer systems and include the human element of soldiers, veterans using services and those who need services can interact on a less formal, but not unprogrammed basis.

Make global leadership a priority. We must add rebuilding the Diplomatic Corps, which was savaged by the prior Administration. Every effort should be made to investigate what really happened with the “perfect phone call.” It may have been the perfect cover-up for a Kremlin led plan to cut military aid to Ukraine, with Mr. Giuliani and Secretary Pompeo acting as the President’s handlers rather than his agents. Provisions should be made to investigate where presidential discretion ends and foreign agency begins.

Meeting National Defense Needs. In general, we recommend that non-strategic air and ground units based in CONUS be funded from the goods and services tax, while sea, overseas (OCO) operations and veterans benefits be funded with asset VAT and higher tier employer-paid subtraction VAT revenues, which will also fund net interest and paying down the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.

Essentially, federal defense spending which benefits the homeland will be paid by American taxpayers, but not by exports. The current regime can be seen as an unconstitutional export tax. Department of Defense product and logistic commands will be funded based on where units are assigned and based. Strategic systems will be nationally funded.

Overseas deployments and war are generally put on the national credit card. It is generally better to tax higher income individuals rather than paying them interest instead. The cash flows are the same, but taxation means that the cash need not be paid back at interest. 

Attachment: Tax Reform

Attachment: Debt as Class Warfare

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Social Security Equity /Labor, HHS, Education FY 2022

Ways and Means, Social Security: Equity in Social Security: In Their Own Words”, June 15, 2021

House Appropriations Labor, Health & Human Services, and Education FY2022, May 19, 2021

My first item concerns my personal welfare as an SSDI beneficiary, as well as for retirees. The need for an immediate COLA for Social Security recipients.

Even before the pandemic, my SSDI was inadequate for food, medicine, clothing and cable. If I owned a vehicle, there is no way I could maintain it or even buy gas. I have an above average benefit, high enough to be ineligible for SNAP or Medicaid. Many are not so lucky, even on a good day. 

In the last few months, days have not been so good. Were it not for stimulus payments, I would be running out of food as I write this and would not have just bought new clothes, from socks and underwear to a jacket I can wear when the Committee finally asks me to testify in person. As it is, I will need to use the last $600 from my December payment (which should have come through Social Security) to attend my upcoming high school reunion. Whale I have wifi, I cannot afford cable and a car is still out of reach.

Let me underline a point. In most months, new underwear is not an option, I rely on free bus rides due to the pandemic and subsidies from Ride On and there is never enough money in that last week before the check comes. When it does arrive, the cupboard is bare.

Double underline: food prices are skyrocketing. Part of the problem may be too much money chasing too few goods, but retirees and the disabled find (our)selves between a rock and a hard place. We need a COLA and we need it now. Most of us cannot even afford cola. Because this is a short term emergency due to the Pandemic, it should be funded out of the general fund until the normal process kicks in for next year.

SS Only: Another concern is the long waiting time to see a benefits specialist at my local Social Security office on Washington Street in Rockville to apply for SSI so that I could get Maryland Temporary Disability, as well as the offices in Washington, DC to apply forSSDI (only to be told to schedule an interview and Springfield, Virginia to get a replacement card for my low wage job.

After my first visit, I knew to set aside an entire afternoon. Post-COVID, we must do better. These Offices were as busy as the Virgina DMV on Saturdays.

My Driver’s License expired in November. It was disconcerting to need an appointment to get one, but because of the pandemic it was no problem with it expiring in the mean time (of course, I don’t drive anyway, so it was no big deal). Years before, a new license renewal meant almost an hour waiting for my number to be called. This time, there was very little waiting while my number was called to get a license. I imagine that my local Social Security office has done the same things to cope with Covid - at least I hope so. We need to preserve these lessons and create a new normal.

Money will be an issue. We need more Social Security offices and maybe, because they have similar functions, cooperation with the DMV might be in order. It would require cross training citizen service workers, but that just means we would have to pay them more and hire more of them. Just a stray thought. More importantly, building more offices for both DMV and Social Security will take money and it should not require higher driver’s license fees or take away from the pool of money used for benefits. 

Both: This brings us to the funding of Social Security administrative costs. They are low - the most efficient in retirement savings. However, they should not have any. This is especially the case responding to the pandemic. Use general revenues now to fund administration, improvements and more office space. As the pandemic wanes, caution will still be necessary for a while. It is time to build out some infrastructure in both government and leased space. The same is the case for Medicare and Disability Insurance costs.  The general fund already owes trillions of dollars to the Social Security Trust Fund. Rather than trying to figure out how to extend the fund for 75 year balance at the expense of future retirees, fund n0n-benefit costs immediately from the general fund.

Appropriations Only:

State governments are under financial pressure as a result of the pandemic, especially in the area of healthcare costs, most especially for seniors in nursing homes who are “dual eligibles.” The heart of President Reagan’s Federalism Proposal was the transfer of state Medicaid expenses to the federal government, largely to fund baby boomers who would become dual eligible with time. Time is now up, or will be shortly. 

Welfare has been reformed, allowing state and federal governments to save money - which was part of the New Federalism bargain that was not accepted at the time. We will address this part shortly, but the irony is that federal money was reduced without the second part of the trade-off. Finish the process and create Medicare Part E for low income disabled and retirees. This will put investigation of nursing home conditions into the federal sector. States have done a poor job in enforcement of health and safety standards. It is time to make this a national responsibility.

The President’s Infrastructure Proposals include funding human capital needs.  These needs are urgent for not only young people going to college, but everyone who is ill served. from English as a Second Language up. 

We recommend that funding include the freshman and sophomore year at four-year institutions as well. Technical training should be covered as well at both public and accredited private schools, including religious schools. In Espinoza v. Montana, prohibitions on funding private schools (Blaine Amendments) were found to be unconstitutional. New (and existing) funding should reflect that fact.

A main problem with current training regimes is that potential students have opportunity costs that are not covered by training. TANF is simply too narrowly tailored and directs too many people to low wage work, especially in the dirtiest jobs in the medical field. The woke among us do not have to look hard for the intrinsic sexism and racism in this scheme.

Payments for tuition, stipends and family support would be funded by employer-paid subtraction value added taxes. Ideally, both state and federal subtraction VAT will be enacted. A federal VAT would be levied to assure that a minimum amount of funding is available should states underfund their programs, which some will.

The American Recovery Plan Act requires payment of the child tax credit in advance of the annual tax filing. This is appropriate and will change the culture of such credits, which should be for continuing support, not an annual bonus. The current plan is for the IRS to manage payments. I submit that, over the long-term, it would be more acceptable to distribute them either through other government subsidies, such as Unemployment Insurance, Disability Insurance, or a training stipend OR through wages. In the latter case, until a subtraction value added tax is in place, the credit would be paid in advance by employers and then deducted from their quarterly tax payment.

Unemployment insurance must be less punitive, particularly where younger workers are concerned. In lower wage jobs, the preference is to find potential supervisors (whose compensation is usually subpar as well) and keep a file of infractions to justify firing workers who do not work out. A punitive work environment that does not exactly make any kind of work attractive. 

In certain circumstances, unemployment compensation should be available on a no-fault basis. Better still, employees should be allowed to voluntarily leave firms with a history of quickly dismissing employees without penalty. There should be no expendable jobs or workers. 

Current punitive taxes on employers would not be appropriate, so a more general levy, such as employer-paid subtraction VAT (if employers continue to pay former workers and help them find jobs or paid training) or a goods and services tax, likely levied, at least partially, at the federal level, with states providing most of the funding.

Unemployment Insurance would include CTC payments and automattic subsidized health insurance coverage with eligibility in the soon to be proposed Public Option. 

Friday, June 11, 2021

Plutocratic Taxes

Whether Bezos, et al, pay taxes depends upon your point of view. Bezos is a capitalist. From his point of view as a capitalist, the workers, plant and equipment, land and even the shareholders are HIS. So are the members of Congress and local elected officials that he donates to.

He does not just employ these things, he owns them. Full-time Amazon workers do not have agency and they work too hard for a second job. We insist that they are paid a living wage (which, by the way, many of them are) because we recognize this ownership. 

When he pays benefits, including those that are tax advantaged, the money is coming out of his pocket. If he choses or causes his benefits manager to choose a less expensive provider, he gets two-thirds of the savings. It is not distributed to the workers. If he pays for more expensive benefits, his workers pay a third of the additional cost, but he pays two-thirds. If he were to not offer insurance, the two-thirds he pays would not go to employees to buy their own unless he wants to do that. They have no say.

So what taxes does Bezos pay?  

  • property tax on all of his facilities,
  • sales taxes on the supplies his company uses, 
  • payroll taxes - both as an employer and for his employees
  • income taxes for his employees wages (they never see the money), and
  • corporate income taxes paid by Amazon.

All of these factors impact his pricing structures and his profits. This is why rich people fight for low taxes on everything, not just themselves. Our economic discussions hint on this fact, although usually only in terms of small businesses. Small businesses sympathize with Bezos, by the way. They consider the taxes that they write a check for to be on them and affecting their pricing and profits. The same is true for the big fish as well.

I could do a back of the envelope calculation on the taxes he pays to maintain his empire, but I think the idea has been conveyed. The lesson is, if you are going to talk about class, it is best to do so from a Marxist perspective. Neo-liberalism just does not cut it.

Why mention this? Because it leads to the solution on how to fix it. If agency and ownership are actually given to employees, then they are owners and the taxes paid are theirs. They will make the pricing decisions and pay attention to the relevant tax policies. 

For now, they need to pay attention to one such policy - how do they get the wealth held by their owners into their pockets - not because they envy that wealth, but because that wealth means control over their very lives. 

Capital gains zero rated for ESOP sales - or a less dodgeable asset VAT, with distributed shares, option exercise, first sale after inheritance, gift or donation marked to market unless sold to them will quickly and efficiently put them in charge of their own destinies. 

A wealth tax has the opposite effect. It legitimates worker servitude by reinforcing the idea that the wealth of Amazon belongs to Bezos, not to them. Using social democracy to take the decisions out of the hands of Bezos and giving them to Congress (and who owns Congress?) does not leave the workers in charge. It is not socialism. It is a better cage. It is not freedom.

Thursday, June 10, 2021

Closing the Tax Gap

Finance, Taxation and IRS Oversight: Closing the Tax Gap: Lost Revenue from Noncompliance and the Role of Offshore Tax Evasion, May 11, 2021

WM: Special Revenue/Oversight: Minding the Tax Gap: Improving Tax Administration for the 21st Century, June 10, 2021

The Administration has requested $80 Billion to enable the IRS to go after an estimated net gain of $700 Billion, or $780 Billion in gross collections. This sounds like a good deal. The only reason to oppose this is the belief that tax cheating is a civil right. Sadly, this may not be far from the truth. By all means, this money should be spent, as the scheduled witnesses will like affirm.

There is an easier way to recoup these funds while ending the requirement to file taxes for 97% of households who are not filing business taxes. Please see the attachment for more information on how this may be done. 

Businesses would pay a subtraction VAT, with a first tier meant to fund the child tax credit, paid leave, childcare, health care, social services and education (including a state administered tax). Ideally, at the federal level, no revenue would be collected because employers would provide these services in lieu of tax payment. 

Higher tiers of the subtraction VAT would collect taxes on salaries with a 6.5% rate on income over $85,000, with incemements of that amount to a top rate of 26% starting at $340,000 in salaried income. Salary surtaxes, with an option to purchase tax prepayment bonds, would start at $425,000 at 6.5% to a top rate of 26% starting at $680,000. 

A credit invoice value added tax to fund what is now collected through the employer contribution to Old Ages, Survivors and Disability Insurance (credited equally for all workers) and discretionary military and civil spending in the continental United States.

Taxes on salaries can be collected by employers without having to file because taxes on capital income and gains would be funded separately. Rental and capital gains on real property would be collected by states and capital gains and income from financial assets would be collected by the federal government, with funds remitted by brokers or trading platforms directly to the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Sales of stock (publicly traded and privately held) to qualified Employee Stock Ownership Plans would be zero rated. Sales of real estate sold to ESOPs or cooperatives would be zero rated at the state level. Shares would be marked to market when information on sale prices is lost, when stock options are exercised and at the first sale after inheritance, gift or charitable donation. Self reporting will not occur, ending non-compliance due to strategic record keeping.

Parking money offshore to avoid taxes can be easily dealt with if we the desire to do so (see again my comments on tax cheating). Subtraction Value Added and Credit Invoice taxes will pull in most revenue - both from labor and profit within the enterprise where the costs are incurred or the goods and services are provided. Even medical services provided remotely (as my last x-ray was) would be subject to tax. 

This applies to headquarters location as well. Correspondence and revenue will be credited where the correspondence is opened and presented at the physical location of the home office. I am sure there are legislative drafters among committee staff who can iron out ironclad language. It is time to let them.

The biggest tax shelter is the use of money market funds to accumulate capital gains and income without taxation. This practice must end if salary surtaxes no longer include non-salaried income. 75% of such funds are held by the top 10% of households as measured by the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finance by the Federal Reserve.. I suspect the other 20% are held by high income retirees. The working class will not be harmed. 

This ratio affirms what Pareto found, except his ration was 80% of wealth held by 20% of asset holders. Clearly, things have gotten worse for the 80th to 89.9th percentile. If you apply the Pareto rule to higher levels of income, and with Berkshire Hathaway there is no reason not to, the top 1450 households hold roughly 30% of all wealth in mutual funds. This ratio also applies to bond holdings, but this is a topic for another day.

This finding also takes away the excuse used to shift retirement income from defined benefits to defined contributions. The only people who benefit more from such arrangements are brokers. The relationship between investment bankers, brokers and ratings agencies makes scenarios about how defined contribution reserve requirements are calculated suspect at best and likely unethical, if not criminal. This ranks up there with using inside information to make electronic trades. At least there, an Asset VAT of 26% should end this practice.

We have left a loophole on Asset Value Added Taxes that some will be able to fly a 757 through, which is trading stock overseas to avoid taxation. The only way out of this is an internationally negotiated asset VAT rate, or at least the same range. This ends the need for a minimum tax on corporate income (note that corporate income taxes will be discontinued under this proposal).
Ending the mutual fund shelter and levying an Asset VAT gets at all of the income and gains that wealth taxes are proposed to capture, or rather, it limits the accumulation of gains and income that is currently sheltered. 

Attachment Tax Reform

Taxing Borrowed Wealth

 ProPublica did a piece on how the rich avoid paying their share of tax. You can find the article here. 

Off the bat, they get a few things wrong. True income is not change in wealth. In 2009, all homeowners lost value on their properties caused by the foreclosure crisis. My family lost about $120,000. Should we have been able to deduct that from our gross income? No. If everyone had been able to do that, there would have been no tax revenue.

In accounting, change in owner's equity and income are NOT the same thing. The best way to lose all credibility is to try to invent your own reality.  can have a lot of definitions, depending upon how you attribute health and tax costs and benefits. While it is true that you can calculate a form of absolute income. I did it myself in examining whether a wealth tax is possible. It is a moving target. You can read these analyses at http://fiscalequity.blogspot.com/2020/05/

One cannot have one set of definitions for the rich and one for the poor. While it seems at times that the system does that, this is not the case. To count asset gains as income subject to tax for rich people, the government would have to do the same thing for the working and middle classes, as well as retirees. 

Then there is the question of defining who is in what class. I divide classes into three groups based on how big a pile of income they actually receive. These are the poor (lucky and not), the working class, the middle class and the rich. The poor have no AGI, for the most part, nor do they pay anything in Social Security tax that they don't get back. They are about 40% of households.

The working class and the poor make up 75% of households, with an AGI of $85,000. The next 20% are the middle class, leaving the top 5% in the upper class (and the bottom half of the top 10% as the upper middle).While average income figures can be misleading, so can median income figures. About a third of total income is not taxable, most of which is paid to the poor and retired (although some retired people are the lucky poor, living off of their investments and paying little in tax). 

The war against the working class started with the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts, which decreased the top rate to 70%. At 91%, CEOs had little interest in cutting salary and benefit costs. The government would eat the savings. The cuts ended relative labor peace and the war over who gets to share in productivity gains was on. 

Reagan dropped the big bomb in 1981, with a Social Security compromise solidifying his gains by creating the Social Security Trust Fund rather than repealing his signature tax cuts. The Tax Reform of 1986 set those gains in stone. While there has been nibbling around the edges, the same basic structure has not changed since then.

Social Security cannot be considered as just another federal tax. The article makes that mistake in doing so, as does Buffett in his usual elevator speech on not paying enough in taxes.  FICA benefits set up a claim on future revenues. They are an asset. To match like with like, only income income taxes can be counted in examining tax equity. FICA payroll taxes have a ceiling, by design. If they did not, Social Security benefits based on wages would be huge for the top 10% of households.  

If anything, the cap on the FICA employee contribution should go down to $85,000, with the employer contribution shifted from an employer-payroll tax matching the employee tax to a Value Added Tax with no caps and the collection of revenue from both payroll and profit. What was the "employer contribution" would be credited to workers on an equal dollar basis, including and especially low wage workers (who, instead of getting EITC, would simply pay no tax on the first $16,000 of income).

The biggest tax benefit is the ability of mutual funds to dodge capital gains and dividend taxation. When taxing asset transactions rather than individual taxpayers, there is no longer any justification for such a wealth building device. It is mostly the richest who accumulate wealth in this way. The working class get no such benefits and the upper middle class does not need them.

ProPublica needs to look at the Federal Reserve's 2019 Survey of Consumer Finance to get the best picture of who owns what in assets. It then needs to apply the Pareto rule to estimate who owns what assets among the top 10%.  Currently, the top 10% of any distribution own 77% of the assets in question among mutual fund holders. I ignore stocks, because they hold no intrinsic value. My analysis is part of a project to determine who owns assets holding the national debt. Bond holdings are distributed about the same way.

My estimate of what the top 0.001% own is therefore 28% of total mutual fund assets, or $3.9 Trillion. They own $1 Trillion of the national debt held in mutual funds and $.9 Trillion held in bonds.

The debt is owed as a percentage of income (and only income) taxes paid - FICA taxes create an asset for the bottom 90%. My latest calculation (I have not updated it in a few months) is that for every $1 you pay in federal income tax, you owe $17.  If you pay nothing, you owe nothing. The top 2.5% owe half the debt. The top 0.001% owe about a trillion dollars. In other words, they own $1.90 for every dollar of debt that they owe. This is why they care more about the debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund than the total debt held by the public. 

This is also the best argument for increasing what the rich must pay. If we do not, the rich get richer on interest received alone. For society to merely break even, their tax bite must double at the highest levels. The salaried income tax rate should be 50%, with up to 25% of salaried income paid to by employers as higher tiered subtraction value added tax and only those making over $425,000 in salaries paying income taxes. 

Let us clarify tax reform terms as the basis for reform: a value added tax usually refers to a credit-invoice goods and services tax which everyone pays. If the VAT is to replace income tax filing, it should be very broad based. In most countries, there are loopholes. These should be minimized in a new system. 

A subtraction VAT is an employer-paid tax where all revenues are subtracted from all expenditures, with a tax on the gross profit. This is how it is done in Japan. Such a tax is not that different from the American system of taxing wages. Essentially, the employer collects all payroll and wage taxes and remits them to the government, as well as the relevant information on individuals. At the end of the year, households reconcile the reported collections of tax and revenue, as well as income from capital gains and returns.

Backing out capital gain and return income into a separate tax allows taxation of assets rather than households. This would be called an asset value added tax. The existence of such ta tax allows for ending household tax filing for all but the wealthiest. There would be no taking capital losses to reduce income tax. If you have a capital loss, you eat it, just like the working class must. 

An asset VAT would end the gaming of income distribution. When capital gains taxes are high, everyone shifts income to dividends. When income tax rates are higher, everyone incorporates. The sweet spot is to get capital income and salary rates to end the incentive for income shifting. If the asset VAT rate is negotiated internationally, market shifting will also be avoided.

Berkshire Hathaway buys companies as a holding company. It is a glorified mutual fund and should be treated that way (as should similar conglomerates). With an asset VAT, buying companies and taking income from them would be taxable events. Berkshire may not pay dividends, but it gets them. When they get them, they would pay an asset VAT, or rather, subsidiaries would pay the SEC before sending the profits to Berkshire.

There is a solution to mega-borrowing. When a plutocrat borrows money, he pays interest. When he does so, that interest should be taxed at the Asset VAT rate. If the plutocrat borrows money to make a new investment, the shares purchased will be taxed, with the seller sending the tax to the SEC. 

For example, if Bezos took out a loan to set up Blue Ocean, when it is capitalized, the public or private shares pay the asset VAT when the shares are issued. Only by selling the shares to a broad based ESOP will the tax be avoided. If the firm goes public, the buyers pay the Asset VAT at market, with the amount of taxes already paid in setting up the firm deducted from what is collected from the buyer and sent to the SEC.

When a plutocrat is paid in stock, the asset VAT will be due at the market rate, not the capital gain when exercising the option. If the asset is inherited, gifted or donated, the recipient must pay the asset VAT on the dividends and the sale is marked to market unless sold to a qualified, broad-based employee stock ownership plan. 

Contrary to the urban legend in the financial media, most multi-generational fortunes are cashed out or put into Trust Funds. Heirs who do not wish to continue in the family business will sell. If they sell to employees, they keep all of their money. If they sell to anyone else, their broker will send a check to the SEC and give them only a share of the purchase price.

Everyone would pay a VAT, on purchases but higher minimum wages and child tax credits would hold the vast majority of families harmless. The rich would not be held harmless, especially not heirs. People with cash can either buy assets (we propose a 24% to 28% asset VAT) or spend the money (13% to 19.5% VAT). If you sell an asset and use the money to buy something, you pay both taxes. 

As I stated in May of last year, a wealth tax is not an option. It has the liquidity problems of property taxes and the reporting issues of capital gains taxes. If you want more tax avoidance, go down this route. The only way to avoid liquidity issues is to have the business held pay the wealth tax. To get the money, it will either decrease cash, lower wages if the job market is monopsonistic (and it always is), raise prices if the product market is monopolistic (and it always is) or by decreasing everyone else's dividends. 

The plutocrats will be held virtually harmless and the wealth they hold will be legitimated. The working class will get nothing but a better cage, rather than the eventual ability to control the workplace they would receive from an asset VAT.

In the end, the wealthy need to want to pay more. If they don't, the European Union or China will link their currencies to their government debt and income taxes that service it. This will give the billionaires themselves another currency to buy and hold and safer harbors for their government lending. Anticipating this, as well as revealing an alternative to increase taxation of assets with an asset VAT, combined with the current inflection point, will lead to real change, such as those I have laid out. This is especially the case if the bottom 98.5% can end the annual ritual of personal income taxation while still receiving such benefits as a refundable child tax credit and comprehensive healthcare.

Tuesday, June 08, 2021

HHS Budget FY 2022

WM:  President's Proposed Fiscal Year 2022 Budget with the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Becerra  June 8, 2021

Finance:The President’s FY 2022 HHS Budget, June 10, 2021

So far, the Administration has not yet addressed changes to the Affordable Care Act, at least not publicly. We suggest that the Committee ask the Secretary about any such plans.

At minimum, the individual and employer mandates, with associated penalties,  that were repealed must be restored.

The President campaigned on restoring and perfecting the Act, adding a public option. We agree, although the public option need not be self supporting. It must be subsidized through a broad based consumption tax. Such a tax burdens both capital and wage income. 

The current funding stream seems to have been designed to draw opposition from wealthier taxpayers. It is an open secret that the Minority does not oppose most of the Affordable Care Act (which was designed by their own Heritage Foundation as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton’s proposals).  Broaden the tax base to fund the program and the nonsense on repeal will end.

The current funding stream from student loan initiation and interest, which was included in the baseline, should also be ended. Graduates (and non-graduates) with student loan debt cannot afford both their loan payments and insurance payments under the Affordable Care Act. When they apply for lower loan payments, which are always granted, they face either a balloon interest payment or capitalized interest, which makes their funding situation worse. No one should have to retire with student load debt, yet quite a few soon will (or already have). 

Forgive capitalized interest and apply any overpayments to principal. There should not be a one-size-fits-all subsidy. Also, when payments are deferred, return to the practice of deferring interest (or allow debts to be discharged, at least partially, in bankruptcy).

The following analysis comes from the Single Payer attachment that has previously been provided. Because of the President’s preference for establishing the public option, we will repeat those analyses here. Aside from a broader base of funding, other compromises are necessary to enact a public option.

To set up a public option end protections for pre-existing conditions and mandates. The public option would then cover all families who are rejected for either pre-existing conditions or the inability to pay. In essence, this is an expansion of Medicaid to everyone with a pre-existing condition. As such, it would be funded through increased taxation, which will be addressed below. A variation is the expansion of the Uniformed Public Health Service to treat such individuals and their families. 

The public option is inherently unstable over the long term. The profit motive will ultimately make the exclusion pool grow until private insurance would no longer be justified, leading again to Single Payer if the race to cut customers leads to no one left in private insurance who is actually sick. This eventually becomes Medicare for All, but with easier passage and sudden adoption as private health plans are either banned or become bankrupt. Single-payer would then be what occurs when insurance companies are bailed out in bankruptcy, the public option covers everyone and insurance companies are limited to administering the government program on a state by state basis.

The financing of the Affordable Care Act should be broadened. It should neither be funded by the wealthy or by loan sharking student loan debtors. Instead, it should be funded by an employer-paid consumption tax, with partial offsets to tax payments for employer provided insurance and taxes actually collected funding a Public Option (which should also replace Medicaid for non-retirees). Medicaid for retirees and Medicare should be funded by a border adjustable goods and services tax, which should be broad based.

Why the difference? The goal is to not need a public option as employers do the right thing and cover every worker or potential worker. Using an employer based tax is an incentive to maximize employee coverage. Medicare, however, is an obligation on society as a whole.

Our comments on Social Security administrative and capital costs originated in our testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee.

I submitted our testimony as an SSDI beneficiary, as well as for retirees. Even before the pandemic, my SSDI was inadequate for food, medicine, clothing and cable. If I owned a vehicle, there is no way I could maintain it or even buy gas. I have an above average benefit, high enough to be ineligible for SNAP or Medicaid. Many are not so lucky, even on a good day. 

In the last few months, days have not been so good. Were it not for stimulus payments, I would be running out of food as I write this and would not have just bought new clothes, from socks and underwear to a jacket I can wear when the Committee finally asks me to testify in person. As it is, I will need to use the last $600 from my December payment (which should have come through Social Security) to attend my upcoming high school reunion. Whale I have wifi, I cannot afford cable and a car is still out of reach.

Let me underline a point. In most months, new underwear is not an option, I rely on free bus rides due to the pandemic and subsidies from Ride On and there is never enough money in that last week before the check comes. When it does arrive, the cupboard is bare.

Food prices are skyrocketing. Part of the problem may be too much money chasing too few goods, but retirees and the disabled find (our)selves between a rock and a hard place. We need a COLA and we need it now. Most of us cannot even afford cola. Because this is a short term emergency due to the Pandemic, it should be funded out of the general fund until the normal process kicks in for next year.

This brings us to the funding of Social Security administrative costs. They are low - the most efficient in retirement savings. However, they should not have any. This is especially the case responding to the pandemic. 

Use general revenues now to fund administration, improvements and more office space. As the pandemic wanes, caution will still be necessary for a while. It is time to build out some infrastructure in both government and leased space. The same is the case for Medicare and Disability Insurance costs.  

The general fund already owes trillions of dollars to the Social Security Trust Fund. Rather than trying to figure out how to extend the fund for a 75 year balance at the expense of future retirees, fund n0n-benefit costs immediately from the general fund.

State governments are under financial pressure as a result of the pandemic, especially in the area of healthcare costs, most especially for seniors in nursing homes who are “dual eligibles.” The heart of President Reagan’s New Federalism Proposal was the transfer of state Medicaid expenses to the federal government, largely to fund baby boomers who would become dual eligible with time. Time is now up, or will be shortly. 

Welfare has been reformed, allowing state and federal governments to save money - which was part of the New Federalism bargain that was not accepted at the time. We will address this part shortly, but the irony is that federal money was reduced without the second part of the trade-off. 

Finish the process and create Medicare Part E for low income disabled and retirees. This will put investigation of nursing home conditions into the federal sector. States have done a poor job in enforcement of health and safety standards. It is time to make this a national responsibility.

One way to increase benefits generally is to increase the minimum wage, the higher the better, and rebase current benefits to consider such an increase to be wage inflation. Such a change will fund itself, because wages funding benefits will be increased across the board.

For long term balance, any cuts must be avoided. Indeed, they are dead on arrival. In the long-term, as we have stated recently as well, debt will be a problem – but not within the next few years – as neither Europe nor China will enact the same kind of consolidated income tax, debt and monetary reserve system that allows us to be the world’s currency securitization provider. 

Debt reduction must not be an excuse to cut entitlements. As we state in our debt volume, Squaring and Setting Accounts: Who Really Owns the National Debt? Who Owes It? - December 2019, the debt assets owed to the bottom 40% are sacrosanct, as they paid for it with regressive payroll taxes while they were working or by having to shift from the Civil Service Retirement System to the Federal Employee Retirement System which required savings rather than a defined benefit. 

Forty years ago, the decision was made to advance-fund the retirement of the baby boomers, rather than immediately begin subsidies from the general fund. Doing so would have required repealing tax cuts for the rich enacted by President Reagan, the Senate and just enough conservative Democrats in the House to do damage.  

Now that the wealthy have to pay what they owe to the trust fund (or rather, the children of the wealthy of the 80s), people are talking about means-testing Social Security and were talking about making it attractive to upper classes by investing it. The latter nonsense died in 2008. The former would again make asset holders fix the debt liability of the top 10%. It would also rob the bottom two quintiles of their most effective voice – higher income taxpayers who do receive benefits. As long as they get them, the program is safe.