My appearance on "The Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann

Here is a link for my appearance on Thom Hartmann last night.

One of the things brought up was a new study by the Institute for Policy Studies and Campaign for America's Future showing that the CEOs behind "Fix the Debt" have benefited from tax breaks for executive compensation to the tune of about $1 billion in 2009-11, for just those companies. This tax break lets companies count pay using stock options -- which doesn't cost the companies anything -- as if it were cash pay and thus deduct it against corporate income. According to Citizens for Tax Justice (via Common Dreams and Huffington Post), the Fortune 500 saved $11.2 billion with this loophole in 2012. Apple alone profited by $3.2 billion from 2010 to 2012 from this tax break.

Appearing tonight on "The Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann

I will be talking austerity tonight with Thom Hartmann on his show, "The Big Picture." The program reaches 50 million homes in the United States, and you can look for a station here. Alternatively, you can watch it online here. The show starts at 7:00pm Eastern Daylight Time, and I am told my segment will begin about 7:15.

The European Union released its unemployment figures this week. Eurozone unemployment increased from 12.0% in February to 12.1% in March, up from 11.0% in March 2013. Greece reached 27.2% unemployment in January 2013 (most recent data available), while according to Eurostat's harmonized unemployment measure, Spain reached 26.7% in March.


No higher resolution available.
Unemployment_rates,_seasonally_adjusted,_March_2013.png‎ (750 × 388 pixels, file size: 7 KB, MIME type: image/png)

Tell me again why we want austerity here in the U.S.?

Bad Economic Development Ideas from Conservatives

Good Jobs First today released a new study debunking so-called “business climate indexes” and showing them to be cover for an ideological agenda of cutting taxes and cutting wages.

“Grading Places: What Do Business Climate Indexes Really Tell Us?” is written by University of Iowa emeritus professor Peter Fisher, a well-known expert on investment incentives and fiscal policy, with a preface by Good Jobs First director Greg LeRoy.

This is an ambitious study that analyzes six different indexes published by five different groups. Four are simple combinations of a wide variety of policy variables, each with its own idiosyncratic weighting systems, all of which are published by conservative organizations such as the Tax Foundation or the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

Two use “representative firm” models to attempt to calculate the tax burden on different types of companies in each state. One is sponsored by the Tax Foundation, the other by the Council on State Taxation.

Since Good Jobs First just knocked out the ALEC study in December, and because the Tax Foundation index is far more widely cited (at least 3 times as much, according to searches of the premium Nexis news database; subscription required), I am going to focus primarily on the critique of the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI).

The SBTCI measures 118 features (p. 49) of state tax law grouped in five categories (p. 50): personal income tax (33.1% of the index), sales tax (21.5%), corporate income tax (20.1%), property tax (14.0%), and unemployment insurance tax (11.4%). As the study shows, these weightings are the source of the most mischief. They are based on the variability of each factor among the states; that is, personal income tax varies the most, and so on.

However, a study by Ernst & Young for the Council on State Taxation determined the actual percentages that businesses pay in state and local taxes, based on analyzing tax returns. Counting the five taxes listed above, the costs are: property tax, 45.9%; sales tax, 30.8%; corporate income tax, 8.7%; unemployment insurance tax, 7.7%; and personal income tax, 6.7% (p. 51).

It won’t surprise you that using the Tax Foundation data with the Ernst & Young weights gives you a very different ranking of the states, with “six states’ ranking changing 20 or more positions, and another 11 states by 10 to 19 positions” (p. 51). In fact, there is essentially no correlation between the Tax Foundation’s ranking and the one constructed by Fisher (-.05, to be exact). In other words, the Tax Foundation’s tax ranking tells you literally nothing about business taxes paid as a percentage of gross state product.

If that is so, what is the whole point of the Tax Foundation exercise? Fisher does not mince words (p.51):

 But the TF sticks with its system because it enables the Foundation to heavily penalize states with more progressive tax systems above all, while concealing this objective in an arbitrary system of scaled and weighted numbers.

 As if this were not enough, the four simple indexes produce widely varying scores: Massachusetts ranks from best on the Beacon Hill Institute’s State Competitiveness Index, 22^nd on the Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, 26^th on ALEC’s Economic Outlook Ranking, and 38^th on the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council’s U.S. Business Policy Index (p. 68).

In some ways, this could be considered a feature, and not a bug. As Peters explains (p. 68), “Conversely, those arguing for lower taxes could find, in 39 states, a measure that ranks them in the highest 15 states, and 27 could find a measure placing them in the highest 10.”

The bottom line is that, like the ALEC report analyzed in December, these indexes are designed to pressure state governments into  lowering taxes, even if that requires cutting spending that benefits business throughout the state (such as a university system); and putting downward pressure on wages, even though it is hard to see how you create a prosperous state based on low-wage jobs.