economy

How corporate tax loopholes defund the American Dream

Note: This is the first installment in a series on how corporate tax loopholes undermine the middle class—and what can be done about it. You can read the second article in the series here, and read the third article here.

By Amanda Litvinov and Dwight Holmes

As more middle class Americans than ever before wring their weary hands over whether to pay down their student loans or make their next mortgage payment, corporations are also experiencing a history-making moment. They’re sitting on record profits, and are taxed at historically low rates.

Between 2001 and 2010, corporate profits in America increased by 125%. Meanwhile, the median family income went down by 4.6% in the same time period. How was such growth in corporate profits possible, given the economic meltdown that started in 2007? Here’s the quick and dirty answer: They stacked the deck.

For decades, some of the nation’s most successful companies and CEOs have financed and lobbied enough politicians to curry a shocking level of influence over how laws are written and which ones pass. They’ve molded a system in which they can keep an ever-increasing share of profits for themselves, stunting the paychecks of working Americans and putting more burden on small businesses.

See the sources for the information used in this graph.

On top of that, corporations are contributing less in taxes to the federal government and to the communities where they conduct their business, meaning less money for serving the public good through education and other services. (A recent report shows 30 of the most profitable Fortune 500 companies pay more to their lobbyists than they do in federal taxes.)

“The middle class is being harmed by the structure of the economy, the structure of the tax burden, and the erosion of social services, including education,” said Robert Kuttner, a co-founder of the Economic Policy Institute and distinguished senior fellow at the non-partisan public policy center Demos.

When corporations don’t pay their fair share in taxes, Kuttner said, there are only three alternatives: “You either cut the services, you add to the deficit, or you make someone else pay—in this case, the middle class.”

We’re not talking chump change here. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that in the past three years, the federal tax revenue lost through corporate tax loopholes is $222.7 billion, which represents a loss of as much as $9.8 billion to public schools. State tax revenue from just the 265 largest companies saw losses of $42.7 billion in three years, roughly $15.4 billion of which would likely go to public schools if the loopholes were closed (see source 1 below).

Our economy was once much more balanced. Between 1948 and 1973, as productivity increased, worker wages grew at the same pace—in other words, American workers got a fair share of the growth. Between that and programs like the G.I. Bill and Social Security, America’s thriving middle class and vibrant public education system astonished the world. Then things changed. It’s more accurate to say that things were changed, by small but powerful groups, including ALEC and other right-wing organizations, and business leaders who wanted to see their companies’ already healthy profits grow exponentially.

To be clear: The concentration of power now in the grips of corporate America and the resulting unprecedented economic inequality we see today is no accident. For the past 30 years, we’ve all been trudging down a path that was carefully plotted for us by those who bought political influence for the express purpose of putting business profits above the well-being of America’s middle class.

They promised us tax cuts would lead to more revenues, greater investment and more jobs. Instead we have unprecedented deficits, falling family incomes, and four job-seekers for every open position.

Americans’ optimism about their children’s futures has reached an all-time low for good reason. Working hard and playing by the rules just doesn’t pay off like it used to; in past eras, greater equity in the distribution of income made for an economy that worked better for everyone. Our best hope for restoring balance is to demand change from our elected leaders.

“We need adequate levels of public spending that are not financed by taxes that come out of the pockets of the middle class,” says Kuttner. “And there are two sources to get those revenues: From wealthy people in their role as individual tax payers … and corporate income taxes.”

Raising our collective voice is the only hope we have in countering the other voices lawmakers hear every day—those of corporate lobbyists and influential business execs who are asking for even more tax breaks. Do you think they have your sons’ and daughters’ educations in mind?

Survey: Teacher Job Satisfaction Drops to New Low

Via NEA

Teachers are less satisfied with their jobs than they have been in decades, according to the 2012 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher. Almost one-third of teachers are thinking of leaving the profession they love – due in part to the unconscionable cuts in education funding. NEA President Dennis Van Roekel described this finding as “shocking” and said it was clear evidence that ill-conceived economic policies are having devastating consequences on teachers and students across the country. More than three quarters of the teachers surveyed reported that their school’s budget had decreased.

“I have heard similar concerns from NEA members,” Van Roekel said. “They have told me that staff and important programs have been cut; early childhood education has been eliminated; computers and text-books were out of date; and classes such as history, art, PE and music—which provide a well-rounded education—are no longer offered.”

The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy, the 28th in an annual series commissioned by MetLife and conducted by Harris Interactive, examines the views of teachers, parents and students about the teaching profession, parent and community engagement, and effects of the economy on teaching and learning in schools.

Two-thirds of the teachers surveyed reported that layoffs of teachers, staff and parent/community liaisons occurred at their school in 2011, and three-quarters have experienced budget cuts in their schools in the last 12 months. The survey also found that teachers and parents of students in these cash-strapped schools are more likely to be pessimistic that student achievement will be better in five years than are teachers and parents of students in schools where budgets have remained the same or increased.

“This is not the way America should treat its students, the vast majority of whom attend public schools. And it is especially outrageous to students in schools of greatest need, “Van Roekel said.

The bright spot in the survey is that parent and community engagement with schools has increased. For example, fewer teachers and parents now believe that there is widespread parental disengagement with their children’s school and education in general.

Overall, the survey found that a majority of both teachers (77 percent) and parents (71 percent) agree that teachers are treated as professionals by the community. In addition, parents of students in schools with high parent engagement are more likely than those with low engagement to rate their child’s teachers as “excellent” or “good” on a range of measures.

Increasing parent and family involvement is an NEA priority and a top strategy of NEA’s Priority Schools Campaign, which focuses on schools in low-income areas.

“The survey’s findings underscore that education is a shared responsibility, particularly in the face of financial challenges,” said Dennis White, vice president of corporate contributions for MetLife. “Economic prosperity will depend on a new generation well-prepared to learn for a lifetime in order to compete and collaborate in a global economy.”

Read the Complete Survey

Why Pay for Performance Should Get the Sack

The following article discusses the problems with perfoamcne pay in the financial sector, the heat of capitalism. Extrapolating this compensation gimmick to educators as corporate education reformers are seeking to do continues to be proven problematic

By Bruno S. Frey, Professor of Economics at the University of Zurich and Margit Osterloh, Professor (em.) for Business Administration and Management of Technology and Innovation, University of Zürich; and Professor, Warwick Business School. Cross posted from VoxEU

As the bonus culture in the financial sector once again comes under attack, this column rubbishes the typical defence that banks need to pay top dollar to attract the best talent.

Scientific literature has extensively dealt with variable pay-for-performance. Despite the fact that serious problems linked to this approach have thus become obvious, many authors continue to support compensation according to predetermined performance criteria because they are committed to the traditional concept of the ’homo oeconomicus’.
Overall, there has been a marked change of opinion in academia (see for instance Bryson and Freeman 2008 on this site). The idea that people are solely self-interested and materially orientated has been thrown overboard by leading scholars. Empirical research, in particular experimental research, has shown that under suitable conditions human beings care for the wellbeing of other persons. Above all, they are not solely interested in material gains (see eg Frey and Osterloh 2002). Recognition by co-workers is greatly important. Many workers are intrinsically motivated, ie they perform work for its own sake because it is found challenging and worth undertaking. This applies not only to qualified employees but also to persons fulfilling simple tasks. They often are proud of their work and performance.

There are four major arguments against variable pay-for-performance:

  • In a modern economy, it is practically impossible to determine tasks that are to be fulfilled in the future precisely enough so that variable pay-for-performance can be applied. In a society continually faced with new challenges, superiors oftentimes find it impossible to fix ex ante what an employee will have to do in the future.
  • It would be naïve to assume that the persons subjected to variable pay-for-performance would accept the respective criteria in a passive way and fulfil their work accordingly. Rather, they spend much energy and time trying to manipulate these criteria in their favour. This is facilitated by the fact that employees often know the specific features of their work better than their superiors. The wage explosions observable in many sectors of the economy can at least partly be attributed to such manipulations, eg when managers are able to contract easily achievable performance goals.
  • Variable pay-for-performance results in employees restricting their work to those areas covered by the performance criteria. In the literature, this is known as the ’multiple tasking’ problem. This may induce employees to spend considerable time and energy during their work trying to find a better-paid job with another firm. They therefore neglect their tasks insofar as they are not contractually fixed by the performance criteria.
  • Variable pay-for-performance tends to crowd out intrinsic work motivation and therewith the joy of fulfilling a particular task. However, such motivation is of great importance in a modern economy because it supports innovation and helps to fulfil tasks going beyond the ordinary.

[readon2 url="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/09/why-pay-for-performance-should-get-the-sack.html"]Continue reading...[/readon2]

The "Jobs Budget" Calculator

OEA has been busy crunching the numbers and has created a cool online calculator tool you can use to see what the economic impact and job losses will be in your schoold district, your county, and even your house and senate districts (those officials might be interested in that, you would think).

Check it out.

For example, Franklin county stands to lose over 1,000 jobs because of this "jobs budget".

OEA has also compiled data on potential job losses and economic impact considering reductions in State funding that will take effect in the next fiscal year. Given the fact that districts cannot operate in a deficit for an extended period of time, cuts in staff are likely. Potential staff cuts are figured by looking at the average cost of salaries and benefits in each district.

Every dollar lost in school funding translates in to more than a dollar lost in the local economy. For example, a school employee losing a job also means a local restaurant or business also loses money because they lose a customer. This tool also allows see the compounded impact from those losses on the local economy. This tool enables you to look at potential job cuts and dollars lost in the local economy by the district, county, senate, and house district levels by using drop down menus.

Kasich Budget Proposal - Economic Impact

job loss calculator