https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEo1G4oC06A
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
Naomi Klein and Jeremy Corbyn Discuss How to Get the World We Want
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRQUyX9L7T4
Bernie Sanders: Iowa - From Protest to Power - July 15th, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1hyb7ZzQRU
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Trump Tax Agenda: 'Astonishing' Cuts for Rich Like Him and Hikes for Middle Class
Trump's tax proposals "would
result in an increase in taxes for nearly 1 in 5 American households"
while cutting taxes drastically for the wealthiest Americans
As Trumpcare withers away in
the Senate in the face of fierce
grassroots opposition, two new analyses published on Wednesday show that
President Donald Trump's tax agenda—billed as his next big domestic
endeavor—would primarily benefit Trump himself and other wealthy Americans
while pushing a larger share of the tax burden onto middle class families.
"The top 0.1 percent,
earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of $937,700, or
a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income."
—Dylan Matthews, Vox
—Dylan Matthews, Vox
Although Trump has yet to
release a detailed version of his tax plan, a new analysis by the
nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (TPC), released Wednesday, concludes the
proposals his administration has floated so far would, if enacted,
"provide the bulk of the benefits to the highest-income households."
TPC found that under Trump's
tax plan, around "40 percent of the tax cut would flow to households in
the top one percent of the income distribution, giving those earners an annual
tax cut of around $270,000."
In this regard, Trump's tax
agenda is perfectly in line with the Senate GOP's healthcare bill, which would
provide hefty tax cuts to the ultra-rich while deeply
slashing Medicaid.
As Americans for Tax Fairness
(ATF) found
in a study also published on Wednesday, among the principle beneficiaries of
the Senate's plan would be Trump himself.
ATF estimated that
"President Trump could get a personal tax cut of between $1.4 million and
$2.8 million a year" if Republicans succeed in repealing the Net
Investment Income Tax, a key Obamacare tax aimed at the rich.
"Now we know how much
President Trump stands to benefit personally if Republicans eliminate just one
tax on the wealthy under the Affordable Care Act," said AFT executive
director Frank Clemente. "Instead of giving himself a tax cut worth up to
$2.8 million, the president should keep his campaign promises not to cut Medicaid
and Medicare."
Trump and his advisers have
attempted to characterize their overall tax agenda as one that
would provide benefits to all, and not just the top one percent.
Analyzing TPC's new report for
the Washington Post, Max Ehrenfreund argues
that this is far from the case. In fact, he notes, TPC's data demonstrates that
Trump's plan "would result in an increase in taxes for nearly 1 in 5
American households."
"And among those in the
middle class, almost a quarter would see their taxes go up," Ehrenfreund
notes. "For households with annual incomes between $49,000 and
$86,000, those facing a hike would see an average annual increase of
$1,000."
For those lower-income
families that would see tax cuts under Trump's plan, they would be nearly
undetectable compared to those lavished upon the wealthiest Americans.
Vox's Dylan Matthews observed
that "the overall plan would give the average family earning under $25,000
per year a $40 tax cut, or a 0.3 percent boost in after-tax income. The top 0.1
percent, earning above $3.4 million a year, would get an average tax cut of
$937,700, or a 13.3 percent boost in after-tax income."
Matthews continued:
If you just look at the tax
cuts he's proposing, 60.9 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent of
Americans. That's a pretty astonishing tilt toward the rich. But if you look at
the combined effects of the cuts and the revenue raisers, 76.3 percent of the
benefits go to the top 1 percent, and 94.8 percent go to the top 5 percent.
Michael Linden, a fellow
at the Roosevelt Institute, broke Trump's tax
agenda down into three simple
bullet points:
So, to recap. Trump plan,
according to TPC:
Million $ tax cut for hyper-rich
Tax increases on 20-25% of everyone else
No econ boost
Million $ tax cut for hyper-rich
Tax increases on 20-25% of everyone else
No econ boost
Serving Wall Street Predators, GOP Launches Swift Attack on New Rule Protecting Consumers
The rule from the CFPB blocks
'a fine-print trick that banks and predatory lenders use to evade
accountability and conceal illegal behavior'
A new rule by a federal
watchdog—hailed as having "paramount importance" for protecting
consumers from Wall Street predators and curbing corporate abuses—is under
direct attack by Republicans just days after being issued.
The rule from the successful
and broadly-supported
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) bans companies from
using mandatory arbitration clauses, which makes consumers give up their right
to file or join class-action lawsuits. In other words, it blocks "rip-off
clauses" that are "a fine-print trick that banks and predatory
lenders use to evade accountability and conceal illegal behavior," as
advocacy group Public Citizen put
it, noting that they are also used by many corporations.
As the CFPB outlines,
No matter how many people are
harmed by the same conduct, most arbitration clauses require people to bring
claims individually against the company, outside the court system, before a
private individual (an arbitrator). Companies know that people almost never
spend the time or money to pursue relief when the amounts at stake are small,
so few
people do this.
In being able to stop group
lawsuits, making people "go it alone or give up," companies can deny
consumers their day in court; avoid paying out big refunds; and continue
harmful practices, the agency states.
"By prohibiting class
actions," the Economic Policy Institute's Celine McNicholas writes,
"companies have dramatically reduced consumer challenges to predatory
practices."
Announcement of the new rule
on Monday drew praise from consumer advocacy as well as U.S. Senator Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.), who helped create the agency in the aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
Warren, for her part, said the
new rule "will allow working families to hold big banks accountable when
they're cheated and help discourage the kinds of surprise fees that consumers
hate." Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, said
it marked "a good day for investor and consumer protection."
"Over the past
decade," added Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs for
Public Citizen, "large corporations have turned fine-print clauses buried
deep in their contracts into a license to steal from American consumers and
cover up the evidence. The CFPB rule will right this egregious wrong by restoring
consumers' ability to enforce their most basic rights and protections in
court."
And according to Vanita Gupta,
president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the
rule marks "yet another example of how the CFPB is living up to its
mandate—to put the concerns and welfare of the consumer above those of
corporations that too often seek to take advantage of them."
The agency, however, has been
in the cross-hairs of Republicans since its inception, and its latest action
drew swift rebuke from GOP lawmakers who vowed to kill it.
In a statement issued Tuesday,
U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas accused
the agency of having "gone rogue again, abusing its power in a particularly
harmful way."
Cotton said he started the
process of getting rid of the rule through the Congressional Review Act—a
"sneaky
tactic" that's been "gleefully
employed" by the current House GOP, which allows Congress to get rid of rules put in place during the
final six months of the previous administration.
And Cotton's not alone.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho),
chair of the Senate Banking Committee and committed foe of the CFPB, also said
Tuesday he'd pursue a similar path. He argued:
"Driving dispute resolutions into class actions is probably harmful to
consumers rather than helpful to consumers."
Also slamming the rule was
Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who called
it "anti-consumer" and urged Congress to "fundamentally
refor[m] the CFPB and dismantl[e] the Administrative State."
Referring to Cotton's
resolution, Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said the Arkansas
Republican "is making clear which side he's on: the banks that want to
predate; the payday lenders that want to fleece; the credit card companies that
want to defraud; in short, the financial industry that spends hundreds of
millions every year on lobbying and campaign contributions."
"And he's making very
clear who he's standing against: American consumers who are routinely
victimized by these very financial corporations," Weissman said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)