As the nation teetered on the edge of the so-called "fiscal cliff" in late 2012, Republican leaders warned that higher taxes for the rich would crush "job creators" and derail the U.S. economic recovery. But according to a new survey, a majority of those earning over $500,000 a year report that the new higher rates on income and capital gains have not impacted their spending, charitable giving or investment strategies. As it turns out, the Chicken Little conservatives could have spared themselves this embarrassment had they just heeded the lessons of American history and the predictions of the Congressional Budget Office.

Last fall, the nonpartisan CBO forecast the impact of "going over the fiscal cliff." As the chart above shows, CBO warned that the combination of the expiring Bush tax cuts for all Americans, the end of the temporary payroll tax holiday and the steep budget cuts of the sequester could catapult unemployment to 9.1 percent while slashing gross domestic product by 2.9 percent in 2013. But ending the Bush tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 a year, the agency assured lawmakers, would have virtually no impact (the 0.1 percent of GDP in light blue above) on the U.S. economy at all.

As CNBC reported last Wednesday, the CBO appears to have had it exactly right--at least so far. The GOP's dire predictions that upper-income Americans would "would spend less, invest less and give less to charity" have not come to pass:

The Shullman Luxury and Affluence Monthly Pulse found that 55 percent of people making $500,000 or more said higher taxes have not impacted their spending plans. Fully 61 percent of those making $250,000 or more said taxes have not impacted their spending plans.

On investing, 59 percent of those making $500,000 or more (and 64 percent of the $250,000-plus group) said higher taxes have not impacted their investment strategies. When it comes to charity, 55 percent of those making $500,000 or more, and 62 percent of those making $250,00 or more, said paying more taxes has not impacted their giving plans.

Of course, it's still early in the year. It's possible some of the well-to-do (that is, households earning over $450,000 a year) have not yet adjusted to the fiscal cliff deal that raised their income tax rate to 39.6 percent (from 35) and capital gains and dividend tax rate to 20 percent (from 15) in addition to the surcharges from the Affordable Care Act.

Possible, but unlikely. As the decades of U.S. history show, the American economy grew faster and produced more jobs when upper-class tax rates were higher--even much higher--than today. And as the data also show, lower capitals gains tax rates don't fuel greater investment, but instead greater income inequality.

Continue reading »

On the eve of last week's presidential debate, Republican Mitt Romney floated a trial balloon to deflect public attention from his detail-free tax plan certain to give a massive windfall for the wealthy, burden middle class taxpayers and balloon the national debt. But largely overlooked in his murky and still-to-be defined proposal to put a dollar cap on individual tax deductions is the devastating impact it would have on charitable giving. Combined with his demand to end the estate tax, Romney's plan would choke off donations to America's non-profits, churches and charities.

When President Obama in 2009 proposed raising $318 billion over the next decade by trimming wealthier taxpayers' deductions for charitable giving from 35to 28 percent, Republicans were apoplectic. Then House Minority Leader John Boehner darkly warned the reform would "deliver a sharp blow to charities at a time when they are hurting during the economic downturn." But as Bloomberg and The Chronicle of Philanthropy each explained at the time, Obama's proposal would likely have little to no impact on charitable giving. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy put the impact at only 1.9 percent of total donations. Noting that the same upper income 28 percent deduction was in place during Ronald Reagan's first term, then-OMB chief Peter Orszag rightly concluded that "what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth."

But Governor Romney's proposed cap on individual deductions is another matter altogether. As he explained his new plan conveniently unveiled on the eve of last week's first presidential debate:

"As an option you could say everybody's going to get up to a $17,000 deduction; and you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others - your healthcare deduction. And you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way. And higher income people might have a lower number."

Within 24 hours, Romney changed his plan yet again. Once-again side-stepping the question of which tax credits, deductions and loopholes he would end, Romney pulled a new figure out of the air during Wednesday's debate:

"Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people."

If so, a large source of funding for America's hospitals, museums, institutions of higher education and more might disappear as well.

Currently, only about 30 percent of filers itemize their deductions, which in 2009 averaged over $26,000. But as Ezra Klein explained last week, "80 percent of tax savings from itemization goes to the top 20 percent of Americans households, and 25 percent of the savings goes to the 1 percent." In 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said those making over $500,000 a year gave 3.4 percent of their income to charity. (Individual contributions accounted for $227 billion of the $304 billion raised by charities in 2009.) Romney's proposed cap would have its greatest impact on upper-income, blue state residents, whose larger state and local tax bills and home mortgage interest payments currently provide the biggest sources of deductions. But charitable giving by the wealthiest Americans, like Mitt Romney's own $2.25 million deduction in 2011, could be slashed as well.

Jim Andreoni, a UC San Diego professor of economics who studies the economics of charitable giving, explained why:

"The effect on charitable giving is likely to be large for high income individuals, especially in the short run..."Some deductions are difficult to change, like mortgage interest or property taxes," says Andreoni. "Those will stay fixed for now, and for many high earners will more than use up the $17,000 cap on deductions. By contrast, charitable giving is about the only category of deduction that people can use in the short run to adjust for an increase in taxes. ... [E]ven though both your mortgage and your charitable giving are losing some tax benefits, only your giving can change in the short run to make up part of that loss.

So, high income donors will have two reasons to cut back on giving. First, they are losing after-tax income from deductions on things other than giving and that are hard to adjust, like mortgage interest. Second, giving itself will become far more expensive and is far easier to change than other deductions. It's intuitive to me that charitable giving will take a big hit from the cap on deductions."

(Given his annual 10 percent tithe mandated by his church, Mitt Romney would likely be an exception to the rule. Still, that doesn't make his claim that his charitable contributions make his own paltry tax rate "really closer to 45 or 50 percent" any more true.)

But capping the dollar value of annual deductions isn't the only way Mitt Romney's tax plan would gut charitable giving. As it turns out, Romney's proposal to end the estate tax, a move which would save his heirs $80 million and those of his billionaire backers billions more, would dramatically slow the cash flow to America's non-profits.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (297)

PLAYS: (2486)

Embed

There's a lot to shake your head at in this Mitt Romney scold of ordinary people who simply want to understand how wealthy people can pay 13 percent of their income in taxes while the rest of us pay something closer to 15-27 percent. But I want to zoom in on this comment:

And if you add in addition the amount the goes to charity [at the Mormon church], well, the number gets well above 20 percent.

I'm not actually sure what logic conflates a church tithe with taxes. Does he think they go to the same sorts of things? Does he truly believe the LDS church actually uses the tithes they receive to assist poor people, build roads, fix bridges, provide health care?

He's either lying or naïve. I'll put long odds on the lie. Before I hear a lot of clucking and see fingers wagging at me for taking aim at Romney's religion, I suggest you read what Mitt Romney thinks "charity" is, because yes, it does matter, and yes, his religion is part of the package. You bet it is.

Start with this. It's estimated that annual tithes and offerings to the Church of Latter-Day Saints are in the range of $7 billion. That's seven billion dollars per year. Where do they spend all that money?

Reuters:

The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.

It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its nonprofits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.

The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters.

Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations.

It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to Earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation.

Now keep some things in mind here. If they could, LDS legislators would abolish the child labor laws in this country. This is so they can then employ children to do the work of men for long hours with little pay in their church-owned enterprises, I'm sure. Or to boost the profits of their member-owned enterprises with cheap labor so they can receive more in tithes and offerings.

Bloomberg Businessweek published an exhaustive report on LDS "enterprise" in July. It was startling, particularly with regard to how vast their enterprises really are. Here's an organizational chart from the article:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (574)

PLAYS: (1261)

Embed

When the candidates released their 2010 tax returns earlier this year, two out of four had given substantial sums to charity -- Mitt Romney and President Obama -- with 14.2 percent and 13.8 percent, respectively. The two candidates who claim to be the most religious lagged far behind. While Newt Gingrich's 2.6 percent didn't especially surprise me, given his love of limos and private jets, Rick Santorum's paltry 1.76 percent was a bit jarring. After all, here's a guy who is such an ideologue on all things religion, and yet doesn't give much to the church he claims sustains him? What's up with that?

During his appearance on Fox News with Chris Wallace, the subject came up, and Mr. Santorum had quite an interesting answer.

WALLACE: One last question on social issues. You say that churches and faith-based organizations have a big role to play in helping the poor, helping people who are disadvantaged.

I want to ask you about the 2010 tax returns because in them, they show that President Obama gave 14 percent of his income to charity. Mitt Romney almost 14 percent. You gave 1.76 percent.

Why so little, sir?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, we always need to do better. I was in the situation where we have seven children and one disabled child who we take care of and she's very, very expensive. We love her and we cherish the opportunity to take care of her. But she's -- it's an additional expense and we have round the clock care for it and our insurance company doesn't cover it, so I pay for it. And you know, that's one of the things that, you know, you have to balance the needs of your immediate family.

That's a pretty rich answer coming from the guy who thinks insurers should be able to completely exclude children and adults alike for pre-existing conditions. Let's not forget that Mr. Santorum has the very best insurance money can buy courtesy of the United States taxpayers, but it still didn't cover those private nurses and other expenses little Bella needs.

Continue reading »

She: "How's your Mom doing?"
Me: "Fine. Slowing a bit as she gets older, but still active, fighting eyesight problems..."

[More small talk]

She: "You know, my mother had cataracts they wouldn't operate on because you know, she was under that [somewhat disgusted tone] "government health care plan."

And then she expanded on that thought with this:

"When I think I need a test or treatment I speak up and say so and I get it, but no government health care plan would do that."

To which, I bit my tongue so hard it bled because I knew in my heart of hearts she would not hear anything I had to say about it. Not one thing. She wouldn't hear me say that the entire reason she has health care for a nominal cost is strictly due to that "government health care plan" she demonizes, and if there were no "government health care plan" they'd just as soon let her die in the streets as take care of her. Unless, of course, she wanted to deed her lovely home and their lifetime savings to a local hospital and specialists.

She wouldn't hear me say that the reason she is fortunate enough to have health care where she can ask for and receive tests which she may or may not need is because she has that "government health care plan" as a foundation for affordable supplemental care, which would not be available to her in any shape or form had she not had the government health care plan.

At that moment, I realized how the Republicans get away with it. They play on pride. This person grew up in the Depression. She and her sister were abandoned by their father at a young age and raised by their mother who cleaned other people's homes to scrape together enough for heat in the winter and clothes for school. They relied on the charity of others -- the holiday food baskets and occasional gifts from neighbors -- to survive. They had no safety net. Then.

Eventually, that changed. She won a scholarship to university and married. Her mother received a small widow's pension under Social Security which was enough to keep her secure. But knowing them as I do, I suspect that small pension felt like charity, the thing they hated to take but needed to keep themselves alive.

Conservatives keep that tradition alive. This is why they demonize the unemployed as lazy scammers and employees' pensions as charity, and call Social Security and Medicare "entitlements", as though somehow paying into something and receiving a promise that it will be received is shameful.

This person has health care because she is over the age of 65 and entitled to receive it for all the years she paid into it. This person has a pension because funds were withheld from her paycheck when she was working so that when she retired she would always have that safe foundation under her and never have to worry about relying on the capricious kindnesses of others.

But to her, it's shameful. It's somehow taking a government handout.

And where are Democrats in this? Are they out there extolling what these programs like Medicare and Social Security are doing to help the parents of those of us out there still working? No. They also call them 'entitlements' and talk about how they have to be "fixed", which plays right into the conservative tropes about how recipients of these "government programs" are on the dole.

Democrats apologize for what they should be celebrating.

My parting shot in this conversation was made with all the calmness I could muster, and it was simply this: Without that 'government health care plan' it's likely she wouldn't have even known she had cataracts. So there's that. And then I reminded her that she, too, benefits from that very same government health care plan.

She didn't believe me. Because Glenn Beck is somehow more trustworthy to her. Therein lies the problem, and it's unlikely to be fixed anytime soon. Take our money, then shame us for claiming a benefit from something we paid for, because that's the conservative way.

As Bernie Sanders's heroic performance on the Senate floor today demonstrates, sometimes endurance is necessary to represent Progressive values. This being the season for altruism as well as activism, here's another opportunity for tenacious performance to improve the lives of those most hard hit by the economic downturn.

The Second City That Never Sleeps is a tradition begun (and thriving) in Chicago, where a small group of comic improvisers perform for 24 hours straight to raise money for a good cause. In Los Angeles this year, we're about to perform for 24 hours to benefit Los Angeles Youth Network.

The sucktastic economic situation has hit all of us, but it's hard to find a more vulnerable population than homeless kids. Their situation in LA County is dire, as EVERY SINGLE OTHER youth facility of its type has had to close its doors in recent years due to a lack of funding. Schwarzenegger et al have slashed funding for social services to the bone, and it's up to the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

LAYN has a remarkable, unheard, crap-your-pants fantastic 80 percent success rate in getting its charges through high school and on their way off the streets. They provide 48 beds, counseling, tutoring, arts and academic education, and the support kids need to get off the streets. They're a spectacular shining star in an area desperately needing some light.

So if you're not in the LA area and can't come down and join us, please join us online. We'll be live streaming the event below (nothing fancy, a basic two-camera setup) from Hollywood starting at 10:30PM PST tonight, ending 10:30 tomorrow. We'll be there with some of the funniest people in LA, sweating it out for the kids.

Please, if you're able to donate, no amount is too small to help.

So enjoy the weirdness, the show will feature veterans of shows such as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Arrested Development, MTV's Wild N Out, Current Television, Groundlings, Second City, SNL, FrankTV, Reno 911, 30 Rock, Last Comic Standing, Colbert Report, Daily Show, Tonight Show, According To Jim, Heroes, Lie To Me. MAD TV, Parks And Recreation, and much much more.

(h/t GottaLaff at Political Carnival)

By now, unless you've been living under a rock, or below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, you know that Glenn Beck is about the lowest common denominator when it comes to corporate teevee and radio. Despite his ratings dive and a lack of sponsors, he still considers himself to be a winner.

Well, he's really stepping in it this time. He's asking his fans to make donations to a military charity to fund a rally in Washington D.C. - the only problem is that the rally is nothing more than a release party for his new book and well...I'll let GottaLaff tell the rest of the story, keying off this audio report from Bill Press:

DOWNLOADS: 1202

PLAYS: 568

Embed

Yes, you heard right. Beck doesn’t even have a permit for The Big Rally yet. They’ve applied, but they’re still in negotiations. Yet, they’re selling merchandise as if it’s a done deal. He’s selling stuff for an event that may never take place.

It’s also not being held at the Lincoln Memorial, but at the reflecting pool, across the street. Glenn Beck is lying about the location of the rally.

And finally, he’s exploiting a charity by soliciting contributions to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. But see, the fine print says all contributions will first be applied to the rally, the one with Sarah Palin. All contributions in excess of the costs will go to the troops.

Let’s recap:
–He’s desecrating the memory of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln;
–He’s lying to the (gullible) American people who still choose to give him an ounce of credibility, and
–He’s using a charity set up to raise money for members of the military, and then stealing the money he raises to pay for his little get together. Read on...

I am flabbergasted that Glenn Beck would try to freeload like that! /snark WTF is wrong with pukes like Beck and Hannity, who claim to be sooo patriotic, yet use military charities to enrich themselves? Oh wait...they're Republicans....

Today would have been the 100th birthday of Jacques Cousteau.

So in honor of the man who brought the incredibly beautiful and fragile ocean environment to our television screens, and mindful of the terrible, generational damage being done to the Gulf of Mexico, how about a small remembrance to Cousteau's charity for the Rights of Future Generations:

" Every person has the right to inherit an uncontaminated planet on which all forms of life may flourish. "

The Washington Monthly: RNC raises money for Hannity

Emptywheel: Can't spell militia without "MI" (and IN & OH)

Laura Rozen: A fierce debate on Israel is underway inside the Obama administration

A Tiny Revolution: Democracy Whiskey Sexy Etc.

We are respectable negroes: Cognitive Dissonance

The Reality-Based Community: Harder than impossible?

Shopping find of the day: a Pat Robertson voodoo doll is being sold on Ebay, 100% of proceeds to benefit the Red Cross:

After an exclusive deal with devil, we are finally able to bring black magic into your very own home! The lucky winner of this auction will attain the soul of Televangelist PAT ROBERTSON in a handheld figurine comprised of the finest straw, cloth, and other organic natural materials! BID NOW to own your very own physical representation of the dark, dark soul of Pat Robertson.

As of this writing the bidding is up to $520.00.

h/t James Jolly (00Bama), who is still waiting to hear from his relatives in Haiti. Our thoughts are with you and your family, James.