The Woman Lawyer - social and shopping website.

Sharing the costs of political injustices

It is commonly thought that when democratic states act wrongly, they should bear the costs of the harm they cause. However, since states are collective agents, their financial burdens pass on to their individual citizens. This fact raises important questions about the proper distribution of the state’s collective responsibility for its unjust policies. This article identifies two opposing models for sharing this collective responsibility in democracies: first, in proportion to citizens’ personal association with the unjust policy; second, by giving each citizen an equal share of the costs. Proportional distribution is compatible with the principle of fairness. And yet, both in the literature and in political praxis we find many supporters for the equal sharing of the costs of unjust policies in democracies. How can equal distribution be defended on normative grounds? This article develops a defense that is grounded in citizens’ associative obligations. I argue that, at least in some democracies, one of the intrinsic values of the civic bond revolves around the joint formation and execution of worthy political goals. This social good generates the political associative obligation to accept an equal distribution of the costs of unjust policies.

Authors: Pasternak, A.

Read more http://ppe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/188?rss=1

Eliminating Handouts for the Rich and Famous

Sen. Coburn is right – the rich don’t need gold-plated life preservers and taxpayers can't afford them

By Loren Adler and Shai Akabas

Apostolos Pittas contributed to this post.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently released a report, titled “Subsidies of the Rich and Famous: Federal Programs and Tax Breaks That Help Millionaires,” that details how millionaires have benefitted from federal law to collect approximately $1.6 billion in payments and $28.5 billion through tax breaks each year. Coburn argues that millionaires are unfairly receiving these benefits, and that they serve as a “reverse Robin Hood style of wealth redistribution.”

During these times of fiscal imbalance, the U.S. must re-examine excess payments and special tax loopholes. Following the super committee’s recent failure to reach a deficit reduction agreement, Congress as a whole must pick up where those members left off. And whether or not one might agree with every one of Coburn’s recommendations, he has honed in on a commonsense area for savings.

In his report, Coburn addresses a wide swath of payments that range from Social Security and Unemployment Insurance to farm and conservation programs. He highlights, for example, an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) report that showed 1,430 individuals with incomes of over $10 million received a total of $47 million in Social Security benefits (or an average of $33,000 per recipient) in 2009. Coburn proposes to scale back these payments, and although many would contend that the universality of the program is important, there seems to be room for savings. Even more astoundingly, Coburn points to the Farm Service Agency, which from 2003-2006, made $49 million in overpayments to ineligible farming recipients, including land developers and a National Basketball Association (NBA) star. As one might expect, bipartisan support already exists for a number of Coburn’s recommendations, including the effort to end unemployment benefits for millionaires and billionaires, which recently received a unanimous vote in the Senate.

Coburn also strongly emphasizes the need for reducing millionaire’s tax breaks, such as deductions for mortgage interest, rental expenses, and business entertainment expenses. Comically, yet tragically, he points out that yachts, should they have sleeping, cooking, and toilet facilities and are lived in for a mere two weeks a year, can be considered secondary homes, and as such enable the wealthy to deduct the interest paid on these mortgages. Coburn also references an absurdly broad IRS definition of “entertainment,” as being any activity that provides entertainment, amusement, or recreation. This definition and the federal tax provision associated with it has led to millionaires to deduct over $607 million in taxes owed (from 2006-2009).

The Bipartisan Policy Center strongly supports modifying or eliminating all of these tax breaks (along with many others). The Domenici-Rivlin Task Force’s tax reform plan did just that. It will create a more pro-growth, simpler, and fairer tax code than the one in place today. The new system will reduce the top individual and corporate rates to 28 percent, while curbing or clearing out a whole host of these deductions and loopholes. In this manner, improving the efficiency and progressivity of our tax code goes hand-in-hand with deficit reduction.

Cutting down unnecessary handouts and loopholes are positive steps towards reducing the deficit, but much more needs to be done. Policymakers need to call for sacrifice from all Americans in order to put the nation back on a path of fiscal responsibility. Yet this is also an opportunity to reassess our priorities as a nation, reform our broken tax system, and restore faith in our government.

Senator Coburn deserves credit for stepping forward with this report to spell out deficit reduction policies – as he did previously with Back in Black – that will eliminate waste and help put America’s fiscal house back in order. He is one of few members of Congress who have courageously proposed specific changes on the revenue side of the equation.

This report sends the critical message that the wealthiest among us are collecting large amounts from government payments and tax breaks. As members of Congress work to close our fiscal gap, they should heed Senator Coburn’s advice to reduce our bloated government’s expenditures – the rich don’t need gold-plated life preservers and taxpayers can no longer afford to provide them.

Read more http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/12/eliminating-handouts-rich-and-famous

Payroll Tax Cut Will Not Affect Social Security Solvency

A payroll tax cut is one of the most efficient policies for creating jobs and growing the economy

By Loren Adler and Shai Akabas

Jonathan Goldstein contributed to this post.

As Europe stands on the brink of economic collapse, the American economy continues to putter along with slow growth and a relatively stable (though severely elevated) unemployment rate. That is the good news. The flip side is that given the United States’ precarious position, a sudden fall in Europe’s balancing act or any other unforeseen shock could easily throw the nation back into recession.

With the current payroll tax cut scheduled to expire next month, Congress should take advantage of this opportunity to significantly expand the policy – making it a complete payroll tax holiday for both employees and employers – to accelerate growth.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a payroll tax cut is one of the most efficient policies for creating jobs and growing the economy. BPC’s proposal will relieve workers of their payroll tax burden for the year – putting that money back in their pockets – which will increase consumer demand. On the business side, the holiday will incentivize companies to increase wages and lower the costs of hiring and retaining workers.

Critically – as this has been the topic of much discussion, of late – this policy will not have any detrimental effect on Social Security’s finances. Let’s take a step back to see why.

Almost all workers in America are taxed on their wages up to a certain income level for the purpose of funding the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (or informally, Social Security). Normally, the rate is 6.2 percent for employees, and an identical tax is levied on their employers’ payroll, for a total of 12.4 percent of payroll. These revenues are received by the Social Security Administration, and utilized to purchase special interest-earning securities that are placed into the Social Security Trust Fund.* When beneficiaries are due to receive payments, securities are redeemed from the Trust Fund in order to pay them.

For many years (until this past one, which we will return to momentarily), the revenues collected have exceeded the benefits paid out, creating surpluses that have built up the Trust Fund’s value. This was orchestrated during the 1980s, as policymakers anticipated the retirement of the baby boomers and attempted to ease the coming demographic shift. Additionally, the Trust Fund’s securities have earned interest, further boosting its total holdings. As a result of these two sources combined, the Trust Fund has accumulated roughly $2.6 trillion of assets.

As of last year, however, Social Security began to pay out more in benefits on an annual basis than it collected in revenues. With the retirement of the baby boomers accelerating in the coming years, this shortfall will grow. While entering the red is not cause for panic, it does mean that the Trust Fund will be drawn down and eventually exhausted over the next few decades, leaving the program on unstable financial footing. (That is why BPC’s Domenici-Rivlin Task Force, the president’s Fiscal Commission, and many others have developed packages of modest reforms that would strengthen the program for future generations.)

Wouldn’t expanding the payroll tax holiday just make this problem worse? No. Under the current payroll tax cut that expires at the end of this year, employees are only paying 4.2 percent – instead of the standard 6.2 percent – of their wages into the Trust Fund. The original legislation for this policy (as well as the BPC proposal for a full holiday), however, ensures that the Trust Fund is not shortchanged. The General Fund of the government will transfer the foregone revenue dollar for dollar back to the Trust Fund, such that it is made whole in real time with no impact on Social Security’s financing. This is one apprehension that can be put to rest.

But this response begs the question: Since you cannot make the money appear out of thin air, if you implement this policy, aren’t you simply adding to the deficit? Yes, but that is precisely why the payroll tax holiday should not be done in a legislative bubble. Both parties acknowledged this in yesterday’s Senate votes, each providing deficit reduction policies to offset the costs. Ideally, a holiday would be tied to a comprehensive long-term deficit reduction plan – one that will do far more than just pay for the holiday. Such a package should be built to stabilize the debt and put America on a path towards fiscal responsibility. With time running short before the end of the year, however, policymakers should compromise on a pay-for that at least offsets the cost of the holiday, and then revisit the larger deficit issues shortly thereafter.

The challenge of deficit reduction becomes impossible if strong economic growth remains beyond our grasp. Allowing taxes to rise next year on every working American is entirely the wrong way to encourage immediate growth. Increased revenues must be part of the long-term fiscal solution, but they should not come from middle-class families in the midst of a delicate recovery.


* The "Social Security Trust Fund" refers to two separately managed accounts: the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund -- each of which funds the corresponding program. Payroll taxes are split percentage-wise between the two. For purposes of this post, they are described jointly for simplicity.

Related Posts

A Menu of Cures for America’s Ailing Economy, November 23, 2011
Putting America Back to Work, November 15, 2011
It’s Time for a Holiday!, October 19, 2011


Read more http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/12/payroll-tax-cut-will-not-affect-social-security-solvency

You are here