One of the longest running pointless discussions in US politics is about what to do about the federal budget deficit. This is simply the annual excess of all government spending over all government revenues. The cumulative total of all such deficits is the government debt. For the fiscal year 2024, the government had revenues of $4.92 trillion and spent $6.75. trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.83 trillion. The national debt up through November 2024 was $36.09 trillion.(See here for more.)

Different people have different views about how big of a problem the deficit is. One school of thought uses the metaphor of the government budget being like a family’s budget, and that a deficit means borrowing money that has to be paid back with interest later. They argue that running up deficits year after year means that the debt burden will become intolerable and that we are leaving future generations (our children in this metaphor) in a fiscal hole that they will have a hard time digging themselves out of. They view this as a horrible prospect.
[Read more…]

State and federal-mandated minimum wages set a floor for what employers can pay their employees. It benefits more than the minimum wage workers because it raises wages up the line. Hence it is should be no surprise that the capitalist class and its supporters hate raises in the mandated minimum wage and try to do everything in their power to keep them from being raised because it lowers their ability to exploit workers and increase their profits. In their mind, the there should be no mandated minimum wage and all wages should be set by the employer and the employee, negotiating freely. Of course they oppose unions as well since those too interfere in the glorious working of the free-market. In this world view, a single employee and a company or massive corporation are equally matched powers and thus the figure they arrive at would reflect the true market value of labor.

Of course this is a fantasy indulged by the capitalist class and has no basis in reality. There is a massive power discrepancy between employer and employee and you need the federal and state governments and unions to at least partially redress that imbalance.
[Read more…]

Medicare is the government-run health insurance program for people over 65 years of age. It is a very well-run program and funded by a tax on income that is automatically deducted from people’s paychecks. The Medicare tax is not huge. It is 2.9% for most people and 3.8% for high earners. If you are self-employed, or get any income that is not a salary or wage, you are still obliged to pay that tax when you file your annual income tax. I have done so routinely with any outside income I got from giving talks or from my writings. You fill in a separate form to report self-employment income and another form to pay the tax on it. It is pretty straightforward.

ProPublica has gone through the tax records and found that very wealthy people have exploited a loophole that enables them to avoid paying any Medicare taxes on their income. The article focuses on three of the most egregious tax avoiders.

The trove of tax records behind ProPublica’s “Secret IRS Files” series contains plenty of examples of billionaire financiers who avoided Medicare tax despite earning huge amounts from their companies. In 2016, Steve Cohen, the owner of the New York Mets, paid $0. So did Stephen Schwarzman, head of the investment behemoth Blackstone. Bill Ackman, the headline-grabbing hedge fund manager, was able to shield almost all his income from the tax.
…

But these maneuvers by the rich hasten Medicare’s future crisis. Sometime in the 2030s, the program’s trust fund is due to run dry. Closing the loophole, along with eliminating other ways around the tax for wealthy business owners, could raise more than $250 billion over 10 years for Medicare, according to recent government estimates.

[Read more…]

Rich people and companies have all manner of ways to avoid paying any taxes at all, let alone their fair share, all because of so-called ‘loopholes’ in the tax laws. These tax evasions are facilitated by giant accounting firms, especially the largest known as the Big Four: Deloitte, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), Ernst & Young (EY), and KPMG. These accounting firms are not just passively looking after the books, they are often key to setting policies.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) reveal one such massive loophole that is being exploited and how Deloitte played a leading role in doing so.
[Read more…]

It used to be considered that the wealthy had some use because they would benefit society via philanthropy by supporting the arts, funding libraries, cultural centers, charities, and so on. It was a kind of trickle down mentality, that they would use some of their surplus wealth to benefit the broader community, if not out of a sense of altruism, at least to head off potential resentment and anger.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells writes in a review of a book by Italian historian Guido Alfani that the new billionaire class does not have the social function that they were once considered to have .and are now increasingly becoming seen as a menace as inequality increases.

In the past generation, the ranks of the super-rich have grown dramatically. Between 1990 and 2020, the number of billionaires in the U.S. increased ninefold. In China, the growth of the super-wealthy has been more explosive still: in a single year, between 2020 and 2021, that country’s billionaire count grew by sixty per cent. Private fortunes of this scale are fundamentally transnational and less moored to individual nations that might make demands of them.
[Read more…]

When people are hired, their contracts can sometimes include what are called non-compete clauses. These were originally designed to prevent someone from learning trade secrets at one company and then switch to another company or start their own business using that knowledge to the detriment of the original employer. As you can imagine, the only people who are likely to know valuable insider information are high-level employees. But companies realized that they could use those clauses to keep many more of their workers captive and started extending the clauses to cover lower and lower level employers, thus preventing them from finding better jobs.

Now the Federal Trade Commission under the admirable leadership of Lina Khan has forbidden the use of such clauses for all but top-level employees. As Kevin Drum says:

The vote was 3-2 in favor of banning noncompete agreements for new workers and voiding them for all existing workers (except C-suite executives). This will eliminate the ridiculous practice of fast food chains hiring sandwich makers and then prohibiting them from quitting and going to work for a different fast food chain—and giving their valuable, proprietary sandwich making expertise to the competition.

Corporate America has only itself to blame for this. Noncompetes used to be limited to high-end jobs like coders or lawyers. But then, as usual, some bright boys got the idea of expanding the idea to poor shlubs working minimum wage jobs. That was outrageous enough that it finally produced support for killing noncompetes completely.
…

A Labor Department study published in June 2022 estimated that 18 percent of Americans are bound by noncompete agreements, while other research suggests it could be closer to 50 percent. They are used in a wide range of industries, including technology, hairstyling, medicine and even dance instruction, while imposing restrictions on both high- and low-wage earners.

The FTC estimates that banning noncompete agreements could create jobs for 30 million Americans and raise wages by nearly $300 billion per year.

All good free-market capitalists—as opposed to those who are merely shills for big corporations—should be happy about this. The United States will do nothing but benefit from it.¹

Apparently California banned these clauses over a century ago and and despite that has had a booming economy.