AMEN. We DO NOT HAVE GROWTH, we have revival as private (families, firms) debt has been reduced. Growth requires stability, less opportunity to be heard on ALL things as opposed to one's own, and less confusion about what sorts of spending are productive or maintaining of productivity, and which are just income transfers and subsidies.
3
Yes, Obama should have learned from the failures of those redistribution nations, such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany and the other social democracies, with their high poverty rates. Or do I have that wrong?
25
Granted, I am no econ or business professor and math is not my forte, but if a few hold most of the pie, how can the rest of us have enough to eat? You seem to suggest baking a larger pie, but where do the ingredients come from? And why focus on that when the current pie is plenty big enough for all of us, as long as the slices are cut a bit more evenly? When is your big pie in the sky going to be ready? I am hungry now.
21
"was a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush"
OK. I'll take that into consideration in considering his perspective.
OK. I'll take that into consideration in considering his perspective.
23
Undoubtedly we should heed Dr. Hubbard's shrewd economic advice in light of the outstanding economic progress and performance by the Bush 43 Administration during his tenure as the Chair of Economic Advisers to the President.
This is the same person who allowed 2 wars to be fought off-budget without paying for them, and continued the redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy taxpayers and businesses under supply-side economic theory. This theory collapsed under its own weight in the Great Recession. An economy can have all the supply in the world, but if there's no increase in wages or benefits to create the necessary demand, that economy is headed for failure.
This is the same person who allowed 2 wars to be fought off-budget without paying for them, and continued the redistribution of wealth to the already wealthy taxpayers and businesses under supply-side economic theory. This theory collapsed under its own weight in the Great Recession. An economy can have all the supply in the world, but if there's no increase in wages or benefits to create the necessary demand, that economy is headed for failure.
20
Yet again a comments thread confirms that NY Times readers have more to offer than some of its columnists and guest writers.
Columbia should be ashamed of itself for enabling Hubbard to indoctrinate yet another generation of business students. Years ago I met a couple of students who freely admitted they were studying business as an easy option because the sciences and engineering were too hard for them. Not that they had considered studying the humanities either; it might have taught them how to think clearly enough to see through self-interested nonsense like Hubbard's that doesn't really stand up to examination. Hubbard's bio in Wikipedia describes him as having been a brilliant student. It's a pity his brilliance, if he still has it, is so misdirected.
Columbia should be ashamed of itself for enabling Hubbard to indoctrinate yet another generation of business students. Years ago I met a couple of students who freely admitted they were studying business as an easy option because the sciences and engineering were too hard for them. Not that they had considered studying the humanities either; it might have taught them how to think clearly enough to see through self-interested nonsense like Hubbard's that doesn't really stand up to examination. Hubbard's bio in Wikipedia describes him as having been a brilliant student. It's a pity his brilliance, if he still has it, is so misdirected.
22
Governments always redistribute. Always have, always will. It's a preventive against revolution. Democrats are the smart capitalists because they know it. Republics are dumb capitalists who want to kill the geese that lays the golden egg, the workers of whatever class.
18
"Ernst Begins GOP Response With Stories About Her Childhood. Sen. Ernst's response to the State of the Union focused in part on her childhood in Red Oak, Iowa, where she "plowed the fields" of her family farm, "worked construction" with her dad, and saved for college by working at Hardees. Ernst cited these events as representative of the many families "who feel they're working harder and harder, with less and less to show for it." [Politico, 1/20/15]
Central Idea Of GOP Response Is To Cut Government Spending. Throughout her remarks, Ernst highlighted the GOP position that a main focus of Congress should be "not [to] pay for more government spending" and to "cut wasteful spending." [Politico, 1/20/15]
Ernst's Family Farm Received Over $400,000 In Government Farm Subsidies
Ernst's Family Farm Benefited From Substantial Farm Subsidies. Ernst's family farm in Red Oak, Iowa received over $460,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2006. Family members received conservation payments, commodity subsidies, and agricultural aid. [The District Sentinel, 1/12/15]
Media Ignore The Government Subsidies Helping Joni Ernst's Family Farm | Research | Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/21/media-ignore-the-government-...
Central Idea Of GOP Response Is To Cut Government Spending. Throughout her remarks, Ernst highlighted the GOP position that a main focus of Congress should be "not [to] pay for more government spending" and to "cut wasteful spending." [Politico, 1/20/15]
Ernst's Family Farm Received Over $400,000 In Government Farm Subsidies
Ernst's Family Farm Benefited From Substantial Farm Subsidies. Ernst's family farm in Red Oak, Iowa received over $460,000 in farm subsidies between 1995 and 2006. Family members received conservation payments, commodity subsidies, and agricultural aid. [The District Sentinel, 1/12/15]
Media Ignore The Government Subsidies Helping Joni Ernst's Family Farm | Research | Media Matters for America
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/21/media-ignore-the-government-...
13
I find this article disturbing from an academic...but from a business school whose donors are in the 1%, its understandable but pandering nonetheless.
13
There has already been a massive redistribution--upward. Since that money is not doing anything but speculating if should be put back into circulation and create jobs.
21
Why is it that when the tax code overwhelmingly favors the wealthy and puts most of the burden on the middle class, that is called "growth oriented" but when people talk about having the fabulously wealthy chip a just a little to help finance the society and economic system that allows them to be fabulously wealthy without fear of armed insurgents storming their homes, it's called "redistribution."
Our tax code has been redistributing money from the bottom to the top for over 30 years. The best economy we ever had was when the top marginal rate was 92%. Let's stop using buzz words to cover up lies about taxes, ok?
Our tax code has been redistributing money from the bottom to the top for over 30 years. The best economy we ever had was when the top marginal rate was 92%. Let's stop using buzz words to cover up lies about taxes, ok?
25
In spite of what you think the vast majority of "income" is exactly in the middle class. You can tax the 1%ers at 100% and you won't balance the budget.
The fundamental idea the Republicans have that the reason poverty exists is because people just don't want to be rich badly enough is based on a fundamental lack of understanding of poverty and opportunity. Moving up in the world is a process of overcoming roadblocks.
Motivation can get people over some types of roadblocks, but the way Republicans try to motivate poor people is by trying to make poverty even more brutally awful than it already is. The thinking is, if being poor is terrible, people will by hypermotivated to leave it. But, the ways they choose to make poverty so much more painful generally just amount to walling the poor in with more and more roadblocks. Deny them healthcare, enough money to get transportation, access to computers, nutrition, and so forth, and yes, they get even more frantic to escape poverty than they already are, but they lack the health to work, the transportation to get to jobs, the computers to find job openings, the nutrition to develop abilities that people want to hire them for, and so forth. It's like trying to squeeze toothpaste out of a tube by squeezing the end with the opening instead of the opposite end.
We know very clearly how poverty is actually solved. It is solved by channeling more of your society's social spending through the public sector. Most first world countries already do that and as a result, they have very little poverty- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/poverty-safety-net
Motivation can get people over some types of roadblocks, but the way Republicans try to motivate poor people is by trying to make poverty even more brutally awful than it already is. The thinking is, if being poor is terrible, people will by hypermotivated to leave it. But, the ways they choose to make poverty so much more painful generally just amount to walling the poor in with more and more roadblocks. Deny them healthcare, enough money to get transportation, access to computers, nutrition, and so forth, and yes, they get even more frantic to escape poverty than they already are, but they lack the health to work, the transportation to get to jobs, the computers to find job openings, the nutrition to develop abilities that people want to hire them for, and so forth. It's like trying to squeeze toothpaste out of a tube by squeezing the end with the opening instead of the opposite end.
We know very clearly how poverty is actually solved. It is solved by channeling more of your society's social spending through the public sector. Most first world countries already do that and as a result, they have very little poverty- http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/poverty-safety-net
14
Republicans keep saying "redistribution" so much that they actually believe that Democrats want to redistribute wealth. Just like Republicans actually believe that ot is a goal of the Democratic party to raise taxes. They repeat these fantasies so often that they have no clue about how to move the country in a forward direction. The next thing you know, they'll be accusing the Democrats of "regulating business into oblivion."
Oh sorry, i haven't noticed where the liberal states are booming and the conservative states are taking.
Oh sorry, i haven't noticed where the liberal states are booming and the conservative states are taking.
14
Not long ago, wages constituted 50% of GDP, now they constitute 40% of GDP. The change from wages to rents, that's redistribution.
Not long ago, 99% of us got 01% of the pie, while the top 1% of us got 9%.
Now, 99% of us get 77% of the pie, while the top 1% of us get 23%.
That's redistribution.
Hubbard ignores these fundamental facts, and the harm they have wreaked in our society. He castigates Obama as "redistributionist."
Hubbard ignores the fact that his side fired the first shots, and is way ahead in what can only be considered the class war that Warren Buffet referred to when he said "my side's winning."
His analysis and prescriptions are a total divorcement from reality.
Not long ago, 99% of us got 01% of the pie, while the top 1% of us got 9%.
Now, 99% of us get 77% of the pie, while the top 1% of us get 23%.
That's redistribution.
Hubbard ignores these fundamental facts, and the harm they have wreaked in our society. He castigates Obama as "redistributionist."
Hubbard ignores the fact that his side fired the first shots, and is way ahead in what can only be considered the class war that Warren Buffet referred to when he said "my side's winning."
His analysis and prescriptions are a total divorcement from reality.
15
Apologies. That should read "99% of us got 91% of the pie."
3
I don't believe that has ever been true.
We start with a few questions: What is the value of work? What is the value of capital?? Who determines the relative value of work and capital and of different kinds of work?
All of these are value questions....Let us assume---just for the sake of argument that we would like the value of both work and capital to be determined by the relative importance each is in growing the total GDP....or something like the GDP.
I don't think we can argue that the current tax system grossly overweights the relative worth of capital investment i.e. equities to work....and as for the relative value of different kinds of work...it is only the in recent past that hospital administrators make more than doctors or that CEO's make thousands of times more than secretaries. In our democracy we are constantly in a negotiation over the distribution of wealth....how the poor and wealthy are taxed...who gets what kind of services. This is not a RE-distribution of wealth....it is the politics by which wealth is distributed.
I believe that economic growth would not be hindered but enhanced by the recommendations made by President Obama. But going beyond that----let us remember that Bismark and Disraeli (two conservatives) put in place some of the first reforms granting benefits to workers....they did so because they recognized that a system which so skews economic benefits towards the wealthy is unstable. Do we in our current era wish to live in house of cards?
All of these are value questions....Let us assume---just for the sake of argument that we would like the value of both work and capital to be determined by the relative importance each is in growing the total GDP....or something like the GDP.
I don't think we can argue that the current tax system grossly overweights the relative worth of capital investment i.e. equities to work....and as for the relative value of different kinds of work...it is only the in recent past that hospital administrators make more than doctors or that CEO's make thousands of times more than secretaries. In our democracy we are constantly in a negotiation over the distribution of wealth....how the poor and wealthy are taxed...who gets what kind of services. This is not a RE-distribution of wealth....it is the politics by which wealth is distributed.
I believe that economic growth would not be hindered but enhanced by the recommendations made by President Obama. But going beyond that----let us remember that Bismark and Disraeli (two conservatives) put in place some of the first reforms granting benefits to workers....they did so because they recognized that a system which so skews economic benefits towards the wealthy is unstable. Do we in our current era wish to live in house of cards?
7
I apologize for shooting the messenger, but:
You would think that someone who is the dean of a business school would have some grasp of business economics, and would have some grasp of the conditions of the real world in which most workers in business find themselves in. You would also think that such a person would be able to 'think outside the box,' as business consultants (many of whom are professors in business schools) keep urging business leaders to do.
Yet, here we are, reading the same ol' same ol'. Why? Oh, I see now. Mr. Hubbard was the chairman (!) of W's economic advisors. And we know how well their advice and counsel worked for us. I'm afraid Mr. Hubbard has confused getting outside the box with climbing into another one. This one is a hatbox, and he is going around in circles, thinking he is going somewhere.
May I make a suggestion to the NY Times? Whenever someone writes a policy op-ed, check whether their work experience and accomplishments support their policy recommendations. In this case, you could have saved money, and maybe printed something useful, like an old 'Pogo' strip - "we have met the enemy and he is us." Or, rather, the GOP and its followers.
You would think that someone who is the dean of a business school would have some grasp of business economics, and would have some grasp of the conditions of the real world in which most workers in business find themselves in. You would also think that such a person would be able to 'think outside the box,' as business consultants (many of whom are professors in business schools) keep urging business leaders to do.
Yet, here we are, reading the same ol' same ol'. Why? Oh, I see now. Mr. Hubbard was the chairman (!) of W's economic advisors. And we know how well their advice and counsel worked for us. I'm afraid Mr. Hubbard has confused getting outside the box with climbing into another one. This one is a hatbox, and he is going around in circles, thinking he is going somewhere.
May I make a suggestion to the NY Times? Whenever someone writes a policy op-ed, check whether their work experience and accomplishments support their policy recommendations. In this case, you could have saved money, and maybe printed something useful, like an old 'Pogo' strip - "we have met the enemy and he is us." Or, rather, the GOP and its followers.
10
This OpEd supports cutting money to the poorest and giving more to the wealthiest. Writing off college expenses for a poor college student would be minimal and not really help with the mountain of debt that would accrue. I’ll take the President’s proposal over this any day.
8
It is my impression that you don't have a bare idea of what is economics.
I would suggest you to read the op-ed contribution by Thomas B. Edsall titled “Can Capitalists Save Capitalism?”.
Mr Edsall explains very well the last economics trends, which are the same of the ones expressed by Mr Obama.
I believe you will learn much on economics.
I would suggest you to read the op-ed contribution by Thomas B. Edsall titled “Can Capitalists Save Capitalism?”.
Mr Edsall explains very well the last economics trends, which are the same of the ones expressed by Mr Obama.
I believe you will learn much on economics.
8
I'm disappointed that the article seems to revisit old and sometimes misleading ideas. In particular, Glenn's statement "raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion" makes no sense. How could say an extra million dollars of dividend income for one "well-to-do" have more impact on GDP than using that money to hire 40 people? I think right now a disproportionate amount of the wealth is tied up in the financial investments of a relatively small group of "well-to-do" while GDP depends on the buying power of all Americans.
Glenn's ideas seem to be intended to preserve that wealth where it is, and I can't see how that is going to drive continued economic expansion.
Glenn's ideas seem to be intended to preserve that wealth where it is, and I can't see how that is going to drive continued economic expansion.
9
I don't see any good ideas here, just the same old that would prove ruinous to millions when things go wrong. As they do. Which we have recently seen.
9
Why Glenn Hubbard, one of the architects of Bush's ignorant and dangerous economic policies has any credibility is beyond comprehension.
12
please remind your readers what economic "ideas" hubbard is responsible for, how many involved self-interest, how many were proven to be plainly wrong.
wasn't hubbard featured in a documentary? doesn't he learn from his mistakes?
wasn't hubbard featured in a documentary? doesn't he learn from his mistakes?
9
Medicare-purchase insurance from one of a number of competing plans.
Medicaid-block grants!
This was part of Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity!" A budget so bizarre that Mitt Romney asked Ryan NOT to bring up his plan while campaigning. Even Romney knew it was a non-starter.
At age 85 I do NOT want to be searching for health care insurance! Mr. Hubbard, do you have ANY idea which privately run health insurance company would insure me as I already have breast cancer, congestive heart failure, and a history of three heart attacks?
Such an insurance company wouldn't be getting a heart transplant for me! No the only people who get heart transplants are the very wealthy who can pay out of pocket...and Cheney got his millions sending our kids to two unholy wars.
Block grants for Medicaid? You do know that Republican governors refused federal dollars for Medicaid..right?
Medicaid-block grants!
This was part of Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity!" A budget so bizarre that Mitt Romney asked Ryan NOT to bring up his plan while campaigning. Even Romney knew it was a non-starter.
At age 85 I do NOT want to be searching for health care insurance! Mr. Hubbard, do you have ANY idea which privately run health insurance company would insure me as I already have breast cancer, congestive heart failure, and a history of three heart attacks?
Such an insurance company wouldn't be getting a heart transplant for me! No the only people who get heart transplants are the very wealthy who can pay out of pocket...and Cheney got his millions sending our kids to two unholy wars.
Block grants for Medicaid? You do know that Republican governors refused federal dollars for Medicaid..right?
16
I love this plan. I'm an owner of three small business corporations and manage several non-profits. The state of the current tax code has driven two of my CPAs out of the industry due to the dysfunctional IRS-ACA bureaucratic maelstrom. I am strongly in favor of a simple approach to taxation. I am not, however, in favor of these ridiculous "comprehensive" bills that seem to have so many riders on it that it pleases no one and no one knows what's in it or understands it in its entirety. The author is right. We can make meaningful and effective reforms in a stepwise fashion. This will also make it so much easier to make adjustments or amendments to individual aspects, without having to go through the entire process all over again.
Bravo, Mr. Hubbard. I hope you keep working on this.
Bravo, Mr. Hubbard. I hope you keep working on this.
2
Whatever became of Paul Ryan and his grand pronouncement that government shouldn't be in the business of picking economic winners and losers. Shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic didn't keep it above water, and neither will providing even more worker financed subsidies to the makers of rules. There once was a time when businesses paid to train their employees, and they rewarded that training with steady work, good pay and generous benefits packages. Today you need to be in upper management or a politician to enjoy that manner of comfort. The economy isn't gilded chaise lounge idlers making rules that protect their markets and the wealth it generates. The economy is real people who aren't pretending to be corporations making things and delivering services. Making rules isn't the same as making a living even if making rules pays a lot better.
7
Sounds like Sir Hubbard object to redistribution and likes it at the same time.
All the proposals that he gives do an excellent job of redistributing wealth up to the top.
And his opposition to taxes make me think that he is one of these freeloaders who claims to be conservative. The ones that use the public roads, NYC subsidized subways and I am sure a lot of other services that the government provides, yet when its time to pay, he wants to pass the buck down the economic latter.
Perhaps I am wrong and he doesn't use the subway to get to Columbia, maybe he walks down a public street. I bet he would love to pay a toll for every house he walks by to prove that he isn't a freeloader pretending to be conservative
All the proposals that he gives do an excellent job of redistributing wealth up to the top.
And his opposition to taxes make me think that he is one of these freeloaders who claims to be conservative. The ones that use the public roads, NYC subsidized subways and I am sure a lot of other services that the government provides, yet when its time to pay, he wants to pass the buck down the economic latter.
Perhaps I am wrong and he doesn't use the subway to get to Columbia, maybe he walks down a public street. I bet he would love to pay a toll for every house he walks by to prove that he isn't a freeloader pretending to be conservative
8
I like the proposals. It would be better than what we've got. I still favor some sort of flat tax. There's no need for the excessively complicated tax code that we have. Getting rid of the current tax code and substituting a flat 17% (or some such) tax with no exemptions, no subsidies, no deductions would simplify the whole system. There could be a floor income level below which no tax would be paid. But, failing what I would like to see, I'll take what this author puts forth.
2
What Hubbard refuses to see is that the inequality problem is basically a political problem, much more than an economic problem. It is the fact that wealth has inserted itself into the political process to an unprecedented extent and has skewed the capltalist system heavly in its favor. All claims that redistributing wealth is not the way to reduce inequality is just a recipe for more of the same, a pretense that any change in tax system and subsidies will do anything other than favor the wealthy. Inequality will not be addressed until the influence of the super-wealthy on politicians is greatly reduced.
8
Let's see:
Cut tax rates for business and the wealthy.
Gut the ACA.
Cut child care subsidies.
Turn Social Security and Medicare into either voucher or welfare programs
Looks like Mr. Hubbard has covered all the usual GOP wish list items.
I guess expecting anyone in the GOP to have fresh ideas would be asking too much.
Cut tax rates for business and the wealthy.
Gut the ACA.
Cut child care subsidies.
Turn Social Security and Medicare into either voucher or welfare programs
Looks like Mr. Hubbard has covered all the usual GOP wish list items.
I guess expecting anyone in the GOP to have fresh ideas would be asking too much.
12
As long as people like the Walton's can sit back and make billions without lifting a finger, while the workers who make that possible are subsidized by the American taxpayers, then I say, bring on the redistribution! During my youth, the very rich paid a great deal more in taxes and investment income was treated the same as work income! I never heard a single time, while these taxes were cut and lowered time after time, anyone call this wealth redistribution, though it very obviously was. If today's taxes were fair, the Walton's would still be rich, but their workers would not have to live in poverty and depend on the taxpayer's largess in order to survive.
10
Mr Hubbard's article called to mind Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" concerning the disposition of Irish children. Of course Mr. Swift's work was satire and Mr Hubbard expects his readers to engage with the substance of his logic. Although certainly not as extreme as Mr. Swift's idea, his approach and logic bend in the same direction.
9
Arguments such as these are the reasons that Republicans seem like propagators of stalking horses and "gaslighting." But today we all know what the Republicans want and this kind of argument is simply specious and embarrassing considering the professor's position in the teaching of the young.
7
In good times and bad times, for economic growth or a fairer distribution of wealth, through sunshine and rain, as a cure for halitosis or whatever else might ail you, for more than three decades, the GOP and its ideological adherents have one answer, and one answer only: cut taxes! Gee, you would think that it would have worked by now.
8
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, huh? And we all know what rip-snorting good economic times the policies practiced then brought us.
Maybe you should take a few decades off, Professor.
Maybe you should take a few decades off, Professor.
7
This article represents the danger of people like Hubbard who is known more for the volume of his output than the quality. As with other extremely partisan Republicans he tries to sell what sounds like reasonable tax simplification focused on growth and fairness. However, what he really advocates is lower corporate taxes, lower overall tax rates so the slightly progressive nature will still lower taxes on the top 1%, and elimination of deductions that are accessed by the middle class like mortgage interest.
The net effect is lower taxes on the top 1% and higher taxes on the middle & lower classes, because he still believes the disproven notion that lowering taxes will raise revenue and spur growth. Ask Kansas how that has worked for them.
He also does not understand that tax benefits like deductions from income taxes are worthless to the poorest families because they never have the money to front payments for benefits that they can recoup when they file taxes.
The net effect is lower taxes on the top 1% and higher taxes on the middle & lower classes, because he still believes the disproven notion that lowering taxes will raise revenue and spur growth. Ask Kansas how that has worked for them.
He also does not understand that tax benefits like deductions from income taxes are worthless to the poorest families because they never have the money to front payments for benefits that they can recoup when they file taxes.
6
What the columnist proposes is a total revamp of income tax as we know it. That's hardly realistic for a second term president, in fact far less realistic than what has already been proposed.
2
I agree taxation alone won't solve all our problems. Republicans handcuffed themselves to a no tax pledge when they take office. Even Reagan raised taxes to pay for increased tax spending in the 1980s to cover his increased defense spending. We will never have a fair tax policy for individuals or for corporations due powerful special interests. As long the the top 1% are paying next to nothing by hiding their wealth overseas or being put in family trusts which make our current tax policy a rigged parlor game for the wealthy.
5
After putting us in debt a trillion dollars for the unnecessary invasion & war in Iraq, while giving war-time tax cuts to the rich, which was championed mostly by Republicans, I don't listen to anything they have to say about economics anymore, except maybe for Ron Paul and the antiwar wing.
5
By putting more cash in the hands of people with a high marginal propensity to consume (i.e., people with modest incomes), economic activity is generated through consumption. This creates jobs to make and sell the products now being bought by those people with a high marginal propensity to consume.
I thought Econ 101 covered this.
I thought Econ 101 covered this.
10
Your Econ 101 textbook was written by a Keynesian.
If you entered the real world, you would see this is 100% incorrect.
If you entered the real world, you would see this is 100% incorrect.
Pope Francis understands economics better than most conservatives, including the author of this op-ed:
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”
“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”
9
Would you rather live in Singapore or North Korea?
How exactly is it that one of the principal authors of policies that destroyed over four trillion dollars in wealth and contributed to the misery of countless millions becomes dean of one of the premier business schools in the US?
Mr. Hubbard should not look askance at the President's community college initiative. Teaching Micro/Macro at a community college is about as much as his talents and resume warrant. And then I would demand to see his lesson plans in advance.
Mr. Hubbard should not look askance at the President's community college initiative. Teaching Micro/Macro at a community college is about as much as his talents and resume warrant. And then I would demand to see his lesson plans in advance.
11
If by the comparison made above I have offended any community college instructors, I sincerely apologize.
5
We don't need redistribution. We need fair distribution in the first place. Fair distribution of the wealth created by working people, wealth they have earned. And fair distribution of the income from capital, which is not earned. The way things are now, hard work doesn't get a person ANYWHERE.
7
Key problem with your argument: "Fair" for you is not necessarily "fair" to me. If they were, there really wouldn't be an issue. Can you see that?
These sound like the same old tired discussion points of trickle down (Political Theories- not economic theory) that are not grounded in reality
The way I see it:
If the wealth 1 % have almost 50 % of the wealth- why aren't they letting it trickle down?
Growth for the poor and middle class = two jobs, or three in some cases.
If our economy is based on spending- without more money in the hands of the middle class, the economy can't grow- and the wealthy are only going to spend only so much.
Either people get a living wage based on cost of living in their area or we provide government subsides for education, child care, housing and health care. Try to sell business on a living wage-- Walmart already helps their employees sign up for Medicaid and restaurant business say they couldn't stay in business if they had to pay people a wage they could live on.
The way I see it:
If the wealth 1 % have almost 50 % of the wealth- why aren't they letting it trickle down?
Growth for the poor and middle class = two jobs, or three in some cases.
If our economy is based on spending- without more money in the hands of the middle class, the economy can't grow- and the wealthy are only going to spend only so much.
Either people get a living wage based on cost of living in their area or we provide government subsides for education, child care, housing and health care. Try to sell business on a living wage-- Walmart already helps their employees sign up for Medicaid and restaurant business say they couldn't stay in business if they had to pay people a wage they could live on.
3
We need a plan based on giving the money to the people who can use it, who deserve it, who created it. Glenn Hubbard thinks those are the billionaires. Most of us know better.
5
Health care is mostly a sink for wealth rather than a generator of new wealth. That translates in to incentives for payers to minimize the costs of providing health care in order to preserve acceptable margins for profit at prices consumers will pay. Inevitably, the result is that consumers who do not need health care tend to be tempted not to pay for health insurance coverage until they see some likelihood that they will need it, which tends to drive prices of premiums up as the consumers become more costly because they are more likely to become sick. Small insurers also face the risk of random numbers where they might just be unlucky enough to enroll too many sick people which results in too much costs to keep premiums competitive, which will tend to favor the long term survival of bigger insurers. The payers reduce the costs by limiting coverage, demanding bigger and bigger deductible and premiums, which tends to dissuade more and more less sickly people to drop their coverage. That's the market for health insurance without a lot of group coverage which retains a large percentage of healthy people in the pool, which is why employee benefits of health insurance benefits are so crucial to the market. The rational solution is to treat health care as a cost of living which is needed by all and managed to keep the costs as low as possible, which makes a single payer system a better solution than a market driven system.
3
Right, Obama's proposals will fail because they have no chance of engaging the Republicans. That's just very insightful on your part...
7
Too bad and too sad that Mr. Hubbard doesn't recognize the equally obvious fact that the GOP controlled Congress' proposals will fail because of the President's veto.
3
I didn't think they let Republicans write stuff in here.
1
Yes, let's turn Medicare into a voucher system, thereby allowing the private health insurance industry - the people responsible for our current high cost/poor outcomes - to prey upon our elderly.
The last thing we need is the 1% and their henchmen offering us help with our inequality problem - the problem that their policies have created.
The last thing we need is the 1% and their henchmen offering us help with our inequality problem - the problem that their policies have created.
4
Really, you believe our current healthcare system has poor outcomes? Compared to which other countries?
There are a few good ideas here. However, arguing against "redistribution" is based on a flawed foundation. Namely, that we are living in some sort of natural state of economy where money flows organically to those who've "earned" it, and therefore any change to that is "redistributing" the rightful wealth of those who have it to those who have not earned it, is bad.
I argue that we live in no such "natural state". We have artificially created a system that distributes wealth according to some set of rules we have manufactured. Adjusting those rules to be somewhat fairer to the many at the expense of the few is not redistributing - if done properly it is distributing in a manner more beneficial to the majority and society as a whole.
I argue that we live in no such "natural state". We have artificially created a system that distributes wealth according to some set of rules we have manufactured. Adjusting those rules to be somewhat fairer to the many at the expense of the few is not redistributing - if done properly it is distributing in a manner more beneficial to the majority and society as a whole.
3
I fear that these federal wealth distribution policies will adversely impact the "upper middle class" and not the "rich". I think that the Federal Government would consider individuals like me - who have just enough discretionary income to pay for their own health insurance, 529 plans and invest in a Roth IRA to be "upper middle class" not "middle class". People like myself will be subjected to higher federal taxes because I have a small discretionary income that I can use to save and invest wisely. I also used some of my savings to purchase a subscription to the NYT!
3
Wealthy people always make this argument. It's been shown that "trickle-down" doesn't really work. And a rising tide (for rich people) does not raise all boats-- just mainly the yachts.
However I wasn't delighted with the President's ideas. Not everyone has kids and is paying tuition. And those who have kids already get some nice breaks. I wouldn't define "the middle class" and young families with kids. It's more diverse than that. And a feature of our tax system that could do with change is how as your earnings go up, your tax breaks diminish until they disappear-- leaving you no better off.
However I wasn't delighted with the President's ideas. Not everyone has kids and is paying tuition. And those who have kids already get some nice breaks. I wouldn't define "the middle class" and young families with kids. It's more diverse than that. And a feature of our tax system that could do with change is how as your earnings go up, your tax breaks diminish until they disappear-- leaving you no better off.
There are no details here! I might be able to support some of these ideas. But I want detailed proposals. I know I will not ever get them. That is how politics is done these days. Lay out ideas, say that these ideas are better than the other guy's ideas. Then when you get into a position to implement your ideas, while no one is looking you do what what you really want to do. I know I know I am completely naive.
So glad the Times gave us this Bush era op ed after Obama's speech. The reader comment retorts are what is interesting, if only to redefine the word 'redistribution.' Otherwise wouldn't be worth reading. Thanks, Times.
3
I think a simpler corporate tax system is something that most can agree on. Our companies can't compete with their global competitors who pay well below the statutory US corp. tax rates. That is the only pragmatic proposal that has a chance of passing with a 2nd term Democratic President and republican house/senate.
Hubbard says "investment in human capital should be deductible from income", and that is a fine idea, but many families are struggling to meet basic needs, and deductibility from income is of no benefit to them. In addition too often the institutions who benefit, especially private educational institutions are not effective in delivering education and in fact are only there for the profits to be made.
2
I do not get the pronouncement that higher earnings are some powerful incentive to be more productive. I would prefer to make more money, personally, all else being equal, but it is a very weak motivator. I find that serving society, being creative, and solving interesting problems are far better motivators. What really kills my motivation is the selfishness of the masses.
Paraphrased from chronicle of philanthropy: Affluent areas with households taking in more than $200,000 a year donate much less than average. Such households make 41 percent of total charitable donations, but at a rate of only 2.8 percent of discretionary income. The kicker? These households belong to the 1% in two ways: they make more money than about 99% of Americans and donate less than nearly 99% did in 2012.
I know a lot of this income goes into investment, which people will claim creates jobs, but if you have not noticed, job creation has been pretty darn poor while income stratification has increased. Maybe it's time to start donating some of those stocks to charity, pay some more taxes so we can have free community college and better K-12 education and so on.
Paraphrased from chronicle of philanthropy: Affluent areas with households taking in more than $200,000 a year donate much less than average. Such households make 41 percent of total charitable donations, but at a rate of only 2.8 percent of discretionary income. The kicker? These households belong to the 1% in two ways: they make more money than about 99% of Americans and donate less than nearly 99% did in 2012.
I know a lot of this income goes into investment, which people will claim creates jobs, but if you have not noticed, job creation has been pretty darn poor while income stratification has increased. Maybe it's time to start donating some of those stocks to charity, pay some more taxes so we can have free community college and better K-12 education and so on.
6
Robots are replacing low skilled workers and Robots are also increasing productivity, but somebody will (have to) create, design, manufacture and maintain the future robots (or robotics), and the write the computer programs of the future that will be a part of the Robotics of the future.
Why don't US citizens educate ourselves and become the “World Robotics Leaders” by creating the STEM educated citizens that would have the capabilities that are required to endure the hard study, hard work, concentration, critical thinking, and the intense focus that is required to obtain science and engineering degrees.
These are the same human attributes that are also necessary for creating, inventing, developing, and applying robotics and other new products that the USA can sell and export to foreign nations to get some of the foreigner's national wealth back into the USA!
Individuals in the USA need to become STEM-educated citizens who have developed the concentration and critical thinking skills necessary to invent, construct, maintain and operate the robots in order to earn wealth by creating and selling “Automated Manufacturing Robotic” machines to foreign and US manufacturers in order to make money to buy food, shelter and clothing as required to feed their own families.
Why don't US citizens educate ourselves and become the “World Robotics Leaders” by creating the STEM educated citizens that would have the capabilities that are required to endure the hard study, hard work, concentration, critical thinking, and the intense focus that is required to obtain science and engineering degrees.
These are the same human attributes that are also necessary for creating, inventing, developing, and applying robotics and other new products that the USA can sell and export to foreign nations to get some of the foreigner's national wealth back into the USA!
Individuals in the USA need to become STEM-educated citizens who have developed the concentration and critical thinking skills necessary to invent, construct, maintain and operate the robots in order to earn wealth by creating and selling “Automated Manufacturing Robotic” machines to foreign and US manufacturers in order to make money to buy food, shelter and clothing as required to feed their own families.
1
It's about fairness and opportunity in America, not about the redistribution of wealth.
2
I like both President Obama's suggestions and Mr Hubbard's ideas. Why can't we pursue all or a mix of them simultaneously?
Same Glenn Hubbard who selected data points to create his theory and then publish his research? Who really cares what a corrupt economist says?
6
Like many fiscal conservatives, Mr Hubbard seems to think that poor and young people who might benefit from extended free education or help with child care aren't interested in working. If we are to "reward work" as he suggests, one first needs to be able to find a job that pays you enough to owe taxes. I suggest he remove the degrees & experience from his resume and try pounding the pavement looking for a low wage job in order to get a sense of the real problem.
6
By "Reward Work" he's talking in economic terms, not subjective terms. Government should create economic systems that reward good things (productivity) and do not reward bad things (not being productive).
Hubbard's column is a text book example of why our economy does not work for those who live on Main Street.
9
"Piling up child tax credits and subsidies for health care over narrow household income ranges, as the president proposes, leads to high rates of taxation on earnings from work as assistance is phased out. Likewise, raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion." I would expect the Dean of the Columbia Business School and a former Presidential Adviser to not mislead people so blatantly. When business 'invests' in its business; i.e., a reasonable and legitimate business expenditure, they 'write it off' in the form tax deductions. A company pays it's workers more wages, gives the workers more benefits, buys more trucks, builds more warehouses and then they 'write it off'. That's why giant corporations even though their tax rate may be about 20% actually pay ridiculously low tax bills if they pay any at all. The top rates could be raised to 125% and the giant corporations wouldn't pay diddly. Apparently, smoke and mirrors are legitimate business expenses for a Dean?
4
Keep your hands off Medicare.
4
So why is it that a member of the Bush II economic administration that:
1) helped design and push the W Administration's 2003 tax cuts that did nothing that they were supposed to do, only exacerbating debts and deficits that Hubbard seems to say warrant reining in "runaway" safety net measures when it those that need the safety net whom his policies have harmed,
2) wrote a Nov., 2004 articlea entitled "How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Facilitate Job Creation," co-authored by the chief economist of Goldman-Sachs and published by GS Global Markets Institute and saying, amongst other things, that financialization had helped distribute risk more efficiently and aiding flow of capital to its best uses,
3) who was paid $100,000 to testify for the criminal defense of (2) Bear Stearns hedge fund managers,
is solicited by the NYT or accepts his request for publishing his opinion/advice on the country's economic situation and solutions to problems he was so instrumental in helping to create and continue?
Why is this man given voice over so many who have been right while he has been completely wrong? Why? Is the media, specifically the NYT, out to discredit itself? Or is it captive to the forces that people like Hubbard represent? What is it? It's one or the other, or both, because we've heard enough from people like Hubbard, and we know what his ideas do.
1) helped design and push the W Administration's 2003 tax cuts that did nothing that they were supposed to do, only exacerbating debts and deficits that Hubbard seems to say warrant reining in "runaway" safety net measures when it those that need the safety net whom his policies have harmed,
2) wrote a Nov., 2004 articlea entitled "How Capital Markets Enhance Economic Performance and Facilitate Job Creation," co-authored by the chief economist of Goldman-Sachs and published by GS Global Markets Institute and saying, amongst other things, that financialization had helped distribute risk more efficiently and aiding flow of capital to its best uses,
3) who was paid $100,000 to testify for the criminal defense of (2) Bear Stearns hedge fund managers,
is solicited by the NYT or accepts his request for publishing his opinion/advice on the country's economic situation and solutions to problems he was so instrumental in helping to create and continue?
Why is this man given voice over so many who have been right while he has been completely wrong? Why? Is the media, specifically the NYT, out to discredit itself? Or is it captive to the forces that people like Hubbard represent? What is it? It's one or the other, or both, because we've heard enough from people like Hubbard, and we know what his ideas do.
12
What we need is both the taxes and the growth opportunities. And the compromise for it to work.
It's supposed to be government of, by, and for the people, as in We the People.
It isn't supposed to be government of, by and for some of the people, as in the richest of the rich people.
It isn't supposed to be government of, by and for some of the people, as in the richest of the rich people.
8
The author was a Bush economic adviser. His team tanked the world economy and then left town (DC), so that others would have to clean up. He really should not weigh in on what Obama said or does. The economy is in better shape then when Bush left office. Its easy to criticize, but one who failed so miserably should be very careful to comment on ideas that work.
10
Bad ideas means bad for the 1%.
6
The Constitution contains the words "promote the general welfare." It also has an amendment allowing progressive taxation, which appropriately spreads the pain of taxation so it falls equally across economic classes. Put these two together and every single program to promote the general welfare constitutes "redistribution" in the eyes of those who have never accepted the basic premise of progressive taxation.
Those advocating elimination of "redistribution" need to realize that what they're really demanding is repeal of important parts of the Constitution.
Those advocating elimination of "redistribution" need to realize that what they're really demanding is repeal of important parts of the Constitution.
4
What really irritates the heck out of me is that this Ayn Rand like blabber was - at least online- placed in the space the is usually reserved for the Editorial.
When first only saw the headline in that space, I almost choked on my morning coffee.
Come on, NYT, please put articles like this into a less expensive 'real estate' place of your on-line version.
When first only saw the headline in that space, I almost choked on my morning coffee.
Come on, NYT, please put articles like this into a less expensive 'real estate' place of your on-line version.
7
Thank you, Mr Hubbard - redistribution punishes the middle class, who time and again are forced to fund the administration's desire to buy votes with entitlements and handouts and its cowardice in refusing to take on corporate tax dodging while continuing to look the other way regarding federal perks that threaten the environment as well as the safety net. Gouging us yet again won't solve the country's economic woes, which won't be fixed unless the problems on the high and low end of the economy are meaningfully addressed.
1
Glenn Hubbard, was economic advisor to Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign.
So much for Romney running in 2016 as the anti-poverty candidate.
The only poverty Romney and the usual GOP shills-for-hire like Hubbard will be campaigning against is their own.
So much for Romney running in 2016 as the anti-poverty candidate.
The only poverty Romney and the usual GOP shills-for-hire like Hubbard will be campaigning against is their own.
4
And I suspect that Hubbard's opinions are just a glimmer of the idiocy that's being taught in business schools/departments and MBA programs across the country. No wonder businesses suffer so often from lack of talent and innovation.
3
It's Valentine's Day not Hallowe'en that's coming. It's not even April Fools' Day yet.
The time is thus wrong for this joke. So don't offer us Bush Lite from a GWBushite who, surprise, opposes downward profit-movement but supports upward cash-flow, wants state control over health care but subsidized by fed revenues, and wants lower business taxes and no support for research and innovation.
To be fair, he omits "derivatives", but the article's hilarious enough without them.
The time is thus wrong for this joke. So don't offer us Bush Lite from a GWBushite who, surprise, opposes downward profit-movement but supports upward cash-flow, wants state control over health care but subsidized by fed revenues, and wants lower business taxes and no support for research and innovation.
To be fair, he omits "derivatives", but the article's hilarious enough without them.
5
Taxes at 38% HMT rate and actually a progressive system. Remove most of the tax credit giveaways. Stop adding more each year. Corporations pay the same since they are 'people'. Promote Unions to represent workers, and add union reps to all board of directors. Offer Child care to all. Lower College costs. Single payer Health care. Reasonable min wage. Fair salaries to all people. Overtime for those who are salaried regardless of income. Increase gas tax to at least $2.00/gallon. Capital gains back to 28%. Surtax on incomes over 1 million per year. Raise SS tax to be progressive up to $350,000. Remove the many tax credits given to corps for going overseas. Hedge fund guys pay a real world people tax.
Easy , and i am no economist.
Easy , and i am no economist.
1
Mr. Glen Hubbard,
I cannot think of any 1992 politician, union leader, businessman, government bureaucrat, or anyone else speaking out against or even remotely objecting to President Clinton's promise to create NAFTA if he was elected, except for third party presidential candidate Ross Perot.
Nobody objected to any of President Clinton's later free trade agreements and his Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for Communist China that relocated US jobs and US manufacturing businesses to third world nations.
Other economic factors also require that the USA reduce the US labor costs and environmental costs of manufacturing things in the USA or those jobs will relocate to foreign nations that have lower pay scales.
Any US citizen, any US business, and/or any US corporation that chooses to use US labor, US business payroll taxes, and US environmental regulation compliance costs to produce their product will experience greater product costs than their competitors that take financial advantage of the free trade agreements created by the last three presidents and US Congress.
I cannot think of any 1992 politician, union leader, businessman, government bureaucrat, or anyone else speaking out against or even remotely objecting to President Clinton's promise to create NAFTA if he was elected, except for third party presidential candidate Ross Perot.
Nobody objected to any of President Clinton's later free trade agreements and his Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for Communist China that relocated US jobs and US manufacturing businesses to third world nations.
Other economic factors also require that the USA reduce the US labor costs and environmental costs of manufacturing things in the USA or those jobs will relocate to foreign nations that have lower pay scales.
Any US citizen, any US business, and/or any US corporation that chooses to use US labor, US business payroll taxes, and US environmental regulation compliance costs to produce their product will experience greater product costs than their competitors that take financial advantage of the free trade agreements created by the last three presidents and US Congress.
3
For those of you who are too young to remember the 1992 presidential election, Ross Perot was a rich guy who looked like Alfred E Newman from the Mad Magazine comic books and talked through his nose.
He ran as a third party candidate against President Bush 41 and President Bill Clinton in 1992 who were both for creation of NAFTA, and he got a lot of the popular votes for his position of opposing NAFTA. He had the right message but he was the wrong messenger.
He was not attractive, and I sadly believe that a lot of the American people vote based upon looks more than intelligence or policy.
Ross Perot had a lot of graphs and charts to indicate his points.
I remember him saying that "NAFTA will suck the remaining jobs out of the USA."
Ross Perot might have been the last chance to save US jobs, US industry and the US economy.
Ross Perot also said, "We need to keep the high tech jobs, it is better than being a nation of chicken farmers.”
He ran as a third party candidate against President Bush 41 and President Bill Clinton in 1992 who were both for creation of NAFTA, and he got a lot of the popular votes for his position of opposing NAFTA. He had the right message but he was the wrong messenger.
He was not attractive, and I sadly believe that a lot of the American people vote based upon looks more than intelligence or policy.
Ross Perot had a lot of graphs and charts to indicate his points.
I remember him saying that "NAFTA will suck the remaining jobs out of the USA."
Ross Perot might have been the last chance to save US jobs, US industry and the US economy.
Ross Perot also said, "We need to keep the high tech jobs, it is better than being a nation of chicken farmers.”
4
Ross Perot lost because he insulted chicken farmers.
1
That might have been the reason!
I think that he lost because he did not have much hair on his head.
I think that he lost because he did not have much hair on his head.
Supply side economics was a novelty in the mid-1970s, when the top marginal individual tax rate was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was 39%. But after three decades of experimentation, for the last time under Dean Hubbard’s stewardship in President George W. Bush’s administration, these rates stood at 35% and 15% respectively.
Per Wikipedia, “the law of diminishing returns states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant ("ceteris paribus"), will at some point yield lower incremental per-unit returns.” And so it has been long established with supply side economics – reducing tax rates on the margin both, at the individual income and capital gains levels, long ago lost their efficacy.
Also, spurring the supply side without any commensurate demand side initiatives is what causes financial and housing bubbles like we saw towards the end of the Bush-Hubbard era. Unfortunately, Dean Hubbard is once gain proposing more of the same – the supply side is doing fine and it is time to focus more on goosing demand.
Per Wikipedia, “the law of diminishing returns states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant ("ceteris paribus"), will at some point yield lower incremental per-unit returns.” And so it has been long established with supply side economics – reducing tax rates on the margin both, at the individual income and capital gains levels, long ago lost their efficacy.
Also, spurring the supply side without any commensurate demand side initiatives is what causes financial and housing bubbles like we saw towards the end of the Bush-Hubbard era. Unfortunately, Dean Hubbard is once gain proposing more of the same – the supply side is doing fine and it is time to focus more on goosing demand.
4
Do people really believe anything this guy has to say? just because he is a dean at Columbia it does not make him an expert... this guy was the architect of GW Bush destruction of the economy... this guy worked for GW Bush and was the designer of the Bush tax breaks for the rich and now he wants to provide his economic opinions?... do me a favor keep your comments to yourself you destroyed this country once we are not giving you another opportunity to do it again... shut your trap...
9
It is stunning for Glenn Hubbard to lecture the Obama Administration on how the "Middle Class Economics" is a bad economic idea. Hubbard was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush - presumably "advising" as hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs each month for two years before the fiscal collapse, which was not a product of "business cycle" but was a completely man-made crisis, brought on by laissez-faire policies run amok (legalized theft). He "advised" as the Bush/Cheney administration cut taxes in such a way as to literally redistribute wealth to the already monumentally wealthy, while mounting multiple wars (never been done in human history). What is even more amazing is that he continues to hawk the "trickle down" economics philosophy which has been proven over and over again to be a con-job by the already super-rich, and thanks to Citizens United, also super politically powerful.
10
Mr. Hubbard,
If US citizens are not willing to work for lower wages that result in lower product costs when compared to using foreigner workers employed in foreign countries as economically required by all of these new “Free Trade Agreements,” then the USA cannot compete for jobs globally based upon lower product costs, and then those jobs are gone forever to foreign nations.
If the USA cannot compete in the international markets with lower product costs made with lower labor costs, then maybe the USA could be competitive internationally through other areas such as exporting superior technology, but only if the USA changed the emphasis of our educational system to produce mostly Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates emulating the wealth creating Asian nations.
Over the past two or three decades, both major political parties of the US congress destroyed our creative STEM human database that possessed the intently focused, critical thinking, and technically oriented knowledge along with their wealth creating manufacturing capability that was required for inventing and manufacturing new products that were the “fuel” of the US economy until our US Congress and past three presidents created the US “Free Trade Agreements” trade status with foreign nations and granted MFN to communist China.
If US citizens are not willing to work for lower wages that result in lower product costs when compared to using foreigner workers employed in foreign countries as economically required by all of these new “Free Trade Agreements,” then the USA cannot compete for jobs globally based upon lower product costs, and then those jobs are gone forever to foreign nations.
If the USA cannot compete in the international markets with lower product costs made with lower labor costs, then maybe the USA could be competitive internationally through other areas such as exporting superior technology, but only if the USA changed the emphasis of our educational system to produce mostly Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates emulating the wealth creating Asian nations.
Over the past two or three decades, both major political parties of the US congress destroyed our creative STEM human database that possessed the intently focused, critical thinking, and technically oriented knowledge along with their wealth creating manufacturing capability that was required for inventing and manufacturing new products that were the “fuel” of the US economy until our US Congress and past three presidents created the US “Free Trade Agreements” trade status with foreign nations and granted MFN to communist China.
2
Glenn Hubbard's laughable premises - long and thoroughly discredited - are so insulting to every working American that I'm tempted to wonder whether its publication amounts to nothing more than click bait.
9
Mr. Hubbard,
If US citizens are not willing to work for lower wages that result in lower product costs when compared to using foreigner workers employed in foreign countries as economically required by the new “Free Trade Agreements,” then the USA cannot compete for jobs globally based upon lower product costs, and then those jobs are gone forever to foreign nations.
If the USA cannot compete in the international markets with lower product costs made with lower labor costs, then maybe the USA could be competitive internationally through other areas such as exporting superior technology, but only if the USA changed the emphasis of our educational system to produce mostly Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates emulating the wealth creating Asian nations.
Over the past two or three decades, both major political parties of the US congress destroyed our creative STEM human database that possessed the intently focused, critical thinking, and technically oriented knowledge along with their wealth creating manufacturing capability that was required for inventing and manufacturing new products that were the “fuel” of the US economy until our US Congress and past three presidents created the US “Free Trade Agreements” trade status with foreign nations and granted MFN to communist China.
If US citizens are not willing to work for lower wages that result in lower product costs when compared to using foreigner workers employed in foreign countries as economically required by the new “Free Trade Agreements,” then the USA cannot compete for jobs globally based upon lower product costs, and then those jobs are gone forever to foreign nations.
If the USA cannot compete in the international markets with lower product costs made with lower labor costs, then maybe the USA could be competitive internationally through other areas such as exporting superior technology, but only if the USA changed the emphasis of our educational system to produce mostly Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates emulating the wealth creating Asian nations.
Over the past two or three decades, both major political parties of the US congress destroyed our creative STEM human database that possessed the intently focused, critical thinking, and technically oriented knowledge along with their wealth creating manufacturing capability that was required for inventing and manufacturing new products that were the “fuel” of the US economy until our US Congress and past three presidents created the US “Free Trade Agreements” trade status with foreign nations and granted MFN to communist China.
2
Asia is now the primary source of the most advanced engineering and scientific talent because their public education process starts early and continues to produce a stream of highly qualified young science and engineering graduates that is quite large compared to what is produced by the US undergraduate college programs.
American students will generally not endure the hard work, hard studying, concentrated critical thinking, and the intense focus that is required for science and engineering degrees, especially since today there is such limited financial rewards and respect for that STEM related effort after graduation.
Asian countries are now producing large quantities of technically educated and competent scientists and engineers with the hard work ethics, the concentrated critical thinking ability, and the intense focus that might even be better technically qualified than the US STEM graduates to create new commercial products with the associated jobs and new taxable national wealth, while the USA educational system produces mostly non-STEM graduates that generally do not create very much new taxable national wealth.
The US congress and the three most recent presidents have eliminated almost all foreign trade tariffs and other barriers with their creation of “Free Trade Agreements,” so now the US workers must now economically compete worldwide based upon producing each product using the lowest cost labor in order to obtain the lowest price for each product.
American students will generally not endure the hard work, hard studying, concentrated critical thinking, and the intense focus that is required for science and engineering degrees, especially since today there is such limited financial rewards and respect for that STEM related effort after graduation.
Asian countries are now producing large quantities of technically educated and competent scientists and engineers with the hard work ethics, the concentrated critical thinking ability, and the intense focus that might even be better technically qualified than the US STEM graduates to create new commercial products with the associated jobs and new taxable national wealth, while the USA educational system produces mostly non-STEM graduates that generally do not create very much new taxable national wealth.
The US congress and the three most recent presidents have eliminated almost all foreign trade tariffs and other barriers with their creation of “Free Trade Agreements,” so now the US workers must now economically compete worldwide based upon producing each product using the lowest cost labor in order to obtain the lowest price for each product.
2
Economic policy from chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under Geroge W. Bush? Enough said!!!!!!!!!!
8
Isn’t the current system based on wealth redistribution in reverse; --from the working poor to the super rich?
8
Want to redistribute wealth to affect yourself? Make good decisions. Acquire an education or a trade, stay off the dope, persevere, show up at work on time, choose a good life partner, do not have kids before marriage, stay away from consumer debt, don't refinance the house to buy a big screen TV, and save/invest for retirement.
4
All true. And the best decision you can make is to vote Democratic.
6
It must be wonderful in a perfect world.
2
Economics is no more a science than are history or law or politics.
Economics is much less of a science than mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology.
Economics is merely arithmetic like finance and accounting.
Economics has no idea beyond ethnic sectarian racially colored socioeconomic political history.
Economics is much less of a science than mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology.
Economics is merely arithmetic like finance and accounting.
Economics has no idea beyond ethnic sectarian racially colored socioeconomic political history.
All of these ideas are from inside the box and only amount to tinkering with a horrible set of rules. Why not think outside the box and scrap the whole system?
For starters why not have a publicly owned national banking system and keep the trillions of dollars generated by the current Fed (that now goes to the big banks) and use that money as part of our operating expenses of our government?
Then let's have a simple tax code where earned income is tax free and where investment income is taxed on a sliding scale, and great wealth does not get inherited so cheaply.
For starters why not have a publicly owned national banking system and keep the trillions of dollars generated by the current Fed (that now goes to the big banks) and use that money as part of our operating expenses of our government?
Then let's have a simple tax code where earned income is tax free and where investment income is taxed on a sliding scale, and great wealth does not get inherited so cheaply.
1
Time for a thought from the world's most successful investor, Warren Buffett:
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-taxes-2011-8#ixzz3PZPqDf8Y
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."
http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-taxes-2011-8#ixzz3PZPqDf8Y
8
I couldn't stand economics as a student. It seemed like a lot of fuzzy thinking and generalizations masking as logic. I assumed I simply wasn't wired for it. Over the years, I've come to appreciate a number of the things I wasn't wired for as a young person--physics, biology, algebra, etc. But I've never learned to appreciate economics. If anything, my distaste for it has intensified. When economists speak, or write, I get the sense that either they aren't saying anything or they don't know what they're talking about. This piece doesn't help.
"Corporate tax reform is held hostage to the misguided idea that tax cuts and tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone, and to the faulty assumption that beneficial tax reform will not raise economic activity."
Whose idea is holding reform hostage? Somebody assumes that beneficial tax reform won't raise economic activity? Who thinks that? Do they believe that harmful tax reform will raise economic activity? For that matter, do we want to raise economic activity? Surely, not all economic activity is good. There may be some circumstances in which we don't want to raise it.
"Narrow household income ranges" is an ugly euphemism for working and middle class families, but how do credits and subsidies lead to "high rates of taxation on earnings from work as assistance is phased out"? When they don't need help anymore, their taxes are going to increase?
Fuzzy writing rarely hides sound logic.
"Corporate tax reform is held hostage to the misguided idea that tax cuts and tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone, and to the faulty assumption that beneficial tax reform will not raise economic activity."
Whose idea is holding reform hostage? Somebody assumes that beneficial tax reform won't raise economic activity? Who thinks that? Do they believe that harmful tax reform will raise economic activity? For that matter, do we want to raise economic activity? Surely, not all economic activity is good. There may be some circumstances in which we don't want to raise it.
"Narrow household income ranges" is an ugly euphemism for working and middle class families, but how do credits and subsidies lead to "high rates of taxation on earnings from work as assistance is phased out"? When they don't need help anymore, their taxes are going to increase?
Fuzzy writing rarely hides sound logic.
4
Glenn Hubbard did such a fantastic job as chairman of W.'s economic council,that I don't have a lot of confidence in anything he has to say critical of this President who has spent most of his 6 years recovering from their incompetent handling of our Economy.
7
chairman of council of economic advisors George W Bush administration !!!???? I think that is all one needs to know! unpaid for wars! unpaid for major entitlement program! huge give away to the rich! the great recession! so who wants to take his advice?????
5
The problems Mr. Hubbard raise can be addressed and addressed well by the lower classes adopting the Pitchfork and Torch Method, but by modifying it to confront the rich directly.
Not much, given our ossified "Democracy", is more effective than fear.
Not much, given our ossified "Democracy", is more effective than fear.
2
Wait, let me get this straight, Obama's ideas are farfetched, but these four are not? Hahaha
4
The Republicans have promised people their trickle down bonanza for several decades. Every time people remind then it hasn't rained, Republicans tell America to lower taxes even more and the drought will end. Sorry the Republican Trickle Down Emperor has no cloths.
6
By serving in the Bush adminstration, Hubbard is no longer interesting as an economist or pundit/
2
Columbia B-School students and alumni should be as proud of Professor Glenn Hubbard, as UC Berkeley Law students are of Professor John Yoo.
10
I am always baffled when someone (like Mr. Hubbard) brings up redistribution of wealth or income as a bad evil. Where was he when wealth and income were being redistributed upward since the 80"s. When you have one party who has done everything to to reduce wages, shift benefit costs to employees, eliminate pensions and undermine collective bargaining by claiming this will create more growth and jobs it is no surprise to find us where we are today. The right has always held on to the belief that if the job creators had more money then the economy will grow and wages go up. Well it has not worked that way.
3
My three part plan would be
1. Remove all corporate and business taxes. These taxes are just added on to the cost of good and services. The reduced expense of taxes will be passed on to lowering the cost of the product and not used to increase the pay of the top corporate officials or returned to the stock holders.
2. Remove all taxes on investment income. Capital gains taxes do nothing but decrease the amount of money available for creating new jobs. Since the vast majority of government services are used by salaried and hourly workers. It is only fair that they pay for these services with taxes on their income. The expense of the military should also be paid for by the working class as the investment class can hire their own private security.
3. Remove all requirements that employers provide health care. The current system is unfair in that the number of employees and the number of hours they work determine whether the company has to pay or not. The licensing, certifying, and regulating of doctors and pharmaceuticals should be eliminated. Doctors and drug companies operating in a fair and open market with "alternative" healers and the supplements industry should dramatically decrease health care costs.
1. Remove all corporate and business taxes. These taxes are just added on to the cost of good and services. The reduced expense of taxes will be passed on to lowering the cost of the product and not used to increase the pay of the top corporate officials or returned to the stock holders.
2. Remove all taxes on investment income. Capital gains taxes do nothing but decrease the amount of money available for creating new jobs. Since the vast majority of government services are used by salaried and hourly workers. It is only fair that they pay for these services with taxes on their income. The expense of the military should also be paid for by the working class as the investment class can hire their own private security.
3. Remove all requirements that employers provide health care. The current system is unfair in that the number of employees and the number of hours they work determine whether the company has to pay or not. The licensing, certifying, and regulating of doctors and pharmaceuticals should be eliminated. Doctors and drug companies operating in a fair and open market with "alternative" healers and the supplements industry should dramatically decrease health care costs.
1
Hear, hear. I thought I had mistakenly gone to another website, only to find that I was actually on the NYT site with a well thought out essay as to how we go from here on jobs and the economy. Mr Hubbard, I understand that you are being met with a blizzard of protests who favor the redistribution approach, but I assure you that in the average middle class home it will play quite well. We need to grow this economy. Otherwise the $20T in national debt that we are heading for in just a few more years will choke us all.
1
Sorry, but you've got this all backwards. The redistribution occurred starting from Reagan and it went the wrong way. Now what is required is to correct that mistake. Re-redistribution is what has to occur.
5
Why does the NYT's give a podium to Hubbard ? He and his ideas have already been debunked. Why is he on this page ?????
10
My God, this man leads Columbia's business school! Absurd suggestions based on false assumptions. He is essentially advocating further commitment to existing failed policies. More accurately, Hubbard's goal is unquestionably to protect the wealth of the rich and ignore the plight of everyone else, based on the spurious theory of trickle down economics.
The Gilded Age is over. If we as a nation, through the policies of our government, do not work hard to "redistribute" assets and income, increasing violence and instability is inevitable. Gross inequity is what drives revolutionary movements around the globe, and in case you are not paying attention, these movements are growing and becoming increasingly violent.
The Gilded Age is over. If we as a nation, through the policies of our government, do not work hard to "redistribute" assets and income, increasing violence and instability is inevitable. Gross inequity is what drives revolutionary movements around the globe, and in case you are not paying attention, these movements are growing and becoming increasingly violent.
9
The Gilded Age is far from over.
It is alive and well here in the 21st century.
It is alive and well here in the 21st century.
1
Old Glenn Hubbard
Went to the cupboard
To get his poor dog a bone;
But when he came there
The cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.
So the story goes, back in the Bush days...
Went to the cupboard
To get his poor dog a bone;
But when he came there
The cupboard was bare,
And so the poor dog had none.
So the story goes, back in the Bush days...
2
Could the NYT not find anyone who has not shredded his professional reputation and integrity rather than the architect of the Bush tax cuts, economist-in-chief for sale than Mr. Hubbard? Please watch Inside Job to get acquainted with the real Mr. Hubbard.
6
Sorry, this is a zero sum game. The economy can only grow so fast. If all the growth goes to the elite few, as it increasingly has over the past generation, then the system is broken, and we need new policies and programs to more evenly distribute income and wealth.
3
Why does anyone give this man any credence? He was the head of the council of Economic Advisers under GWB - and what a phenomenal job he did! Caused the biggest economic mess since the great depression. And he's disappointed by the President's speech? Somehow he fails to recognize that it is This President who has spent 6 years cleaning up the mess form the President Bush, who followed the advise of this man.
8
It really is inspirational to see a cogent well thought out op-ed piece, despite the depressing fact that after the State of the Union address nothing is going to go anywhere in Congress. So, Dean Hubbard, keep on dreaming; they say that someday are dreams may come true.
1
I am uncertain after reading Mr. Hubbard's piece whether he is very smart, very sly, or very ignorant. He seems to me to be very smart (or very sly) not to make any defense of the current tax break that allows the wealthiest to pass on their stock holdings to the their heirs without paying any taxes on their appreciated value. This is an indefensible tax break that does not foster growth. Thus, the President was wise to propose stopping it and doing so would do nothing to impeded growth. if Mr. Hubbard believes what he says, he should be lauding the President's proposal. Since Mr. Hubbard's purpose is to protect the weatlhy, he is very smart (or sly) not to talk about this part of the President's proposals.
But I also want to believe that Mr. Hubbard is ignorant: ignorant of the real difficultiies of living on stagnant or falling incomes, ignorant of the fact that poor families cannot afford to pay health insurance through his plan for tax free "health care savings accounts"; ignorant of the desperation of hungry children.
Whether he is smart or ignorant, his ideas are not going to help the Republicans in 2016. Maybe he is just tone deaf?
But I also want to believe that Mr. Hubbard is ignorant: ignorant of the real difficultiies of living on stagnant or falling incomes, ignorant of the fact that poor families cannot afford to pay health insurance through his plan for tax free "health care savings accounts"; ignorant of the desperation of hungry children.
Whether he is smart or ignorant, his ideas are not going to help the Republicans in 2016. Maybe he is just tone deaf?
1
I agree with the proposal to end income redistribution - from the poor to the rich. When the Buffett Rule is adopted (He pays as much in his overall tax rate as his secretary) I will rethink my political allegiance. When Social Security becomes a flat tax (for billionaires), when retiree IRA pay that same capital gains tax as Mitt Romney (a maker vs taker) then I'll rejoin the GOP moderates (RIP). BTW, when was that last time he swung a wrench?
3
So much to say. So few characters available to say it.
First for those who hail Obama prosperity: There is an old joke about the wife who returned from a trip early to surprise her husband. And was surprised in turn to find him in bed with a younger woman. He of no morals but quick wit blurted out: Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. Don't believe me read the article in todays's NYT on people who don't see the prosperity.
A second point. The comments are full of praise for income/wealth- always that belonging to others- redistribution to the needy. Which I believe in if done with prudence. However-I daresay without fear of factual contradiction-that each and every such commentator is among the richest in the world. At least the top 5% (I've researched statistics). More likely in a a significantly higher percentile. How do I know? Among other things they have electricity, they own a computer, they can afford an internet connection, they have time to comment. And they can afford the NYT. When they are ready to follow the advice of Christ to the young man who asked how to be more perfect: Sell all you have and come follow me, come back again and comment in a similar vein.
First for those who hail Obama prosperity: There is an old joke about the wife who returned from a trip early to surprise her husband. And was surprised in turn to find him in bed with a younger woman. He of no morals but quick wit blurted out: Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes. Don't believe me read the article in todays's NYT on people who don't see the prosperity.
A second point. The comments are full of praise for income/wealth- always that belonging to others- redistribution to the needy. Which I believe in if done with prudence. However-I daresay without fear of factual contradiction-that each and every such commentator is among the richest in the world. At least the top 5% (I've researched statistics). More likely in a a significantly higher percentile. How do I know? Among other things they have electricity, they own a computer, they can afford an internet connection, they have time to comment. And they can afford the NYT. When they are ready to follow the advice of Christ to the young man who asked how to be more perfect: Sell all you have and come follow me, come back again and comment in a similar vein.
2
What rubbish but Calvin Coolidge would have approved.
3
"Hi, I'm Glenn Hubbard. I was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush."
What a neat synthesis of Hester Prime's big scarlet A and the Mark of Cain! Outside of Texas and those states that take more from the Federal budget than they contribute, such an introduction would merit ridicule and shunning, not a privileged place on the NYT's Op-Ed page.
What a neat synthesis of Hester Prime's big scarlet A and the Mark of Cain! Outside of Texas and those states that take more from the Federal budget than they contribute, such an introduction would merit ridicule and shunning, not a privileged place on the NYT's Op-Ed page.
6
It's amazing that some one like Mr. Hubbard still thinks the way he does, when most of what he has to say has been debunked over and over. His enitre schtick is just "Let business have what they want." Huh! We did that. That's our problem. There are so many things either out of date or just plain wrong with his thinking, where does one begin, except to say that for the most part that this is what most Republicans believe and acted upon, and we wonder why we are in the situation that we are currently experiencing? How about we raise taxes on business and higher incomes. Revise the tax code to eliminate or limit outrageous and preferential deductions, and start to evaluate just how much revenue and stimulus this will mean to our government and our economy, particularly the middle class, who have been left of the equation. It is a strong federal system that allows commerce to thrive and it must pay its dues if it wants the protections and the priviledges that it is being afforded. It is OK, I guess, for business to believe that it can pay low wages and sell junk, but there is an end to that kind of approach to making a profit. We have hit the wall there, and what we find is that essentially business runs out of cutomers. Hmmm! How did that happen? The Golden Egg was the Middle Class and still is. There is really nothing in this article that would actually benefit the middle class. It's all about protecting the wealthy.
6
Another piece of nonsense from the clowns who think that workers are takers and Glenn Hubbard and his ilk are makers. They have been consistently wrong but incompetence or criminal behavior is no impediment to continued employment for the 1%. They just chug alone while the rest of us struggle. But that's the real plan isn't it?
5
Why anyone would pay attention to Glenn Hubbard is beyond me. He is among those smart economists who brought us the financial meltdown. Check out his behavior, too, in the documentary about the crash,"The Inside Story."
He is a George Bush era type, as noted in the bio note. Need I say more about that school of economics?!
He is a George Bush era type, as noted in the bio note. Need I say more about that school of economics?!
6
This is rich coming from the guy who engineered the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and forced average Americans to pay for them. Have you no shame, sir? For older Americans and Fox watchers, get your head around what Mr. Hubbard is actually saying: "Converting Medicaid to a block grant.'' Medicaid as a block grant. Wow! The Chutzpah.
6
You start your article: "His ideas — free community college, an enhanced tax credit for child care and higher taxes on high-income earners and large financial institutions — failed to go beyond mere talking points. With no chance of engaging the Republicans, they will surely die without a hearing." Apparently you argue that since they cannot pass the Congress, that makes them bad ideas.
Then you propose several things, including closing loopholes which this Congress (or the last one) has previously rejected. Does this make your ideas bad as well.
Its important readers know that you were the head of President George W. Bush's group of economic advisors. What is remarkable is that you are still employed in a prominent position at this point based on the performance of the economy during his tenure and particularly at the end which is the period in which the sum of his policies had the opportunity to have the most effect.
Then you propose several things, including closing loopholes which this Congress (or the last one) has previously rejected. Does this make your ideas bad as well.
Its important readers know that you were the head of President George W. Bush's group of economic advisors. What is remarkable is that you are still employed in a prominent position at this point based on the performance of the economy during his tenure and particularly at the end which is the period in which the sum of his policies had the opportunity to have the most effect.
6
Six years later and Obama proposes redistribution. Odd. His policies for the past 6 years have directly resulted in the largest difference between the top 5% and the rest of the population in history.
2
Job creation is the result of increasing consumer demand, not from tinkering with tax rates. Supply-side economics has shown - repeatedly - not to work.
…And this guy runs a prestigious business school?
We need to stop exporting our well-pyaing middle class jobs!
…And this guy runs a prestigious business school?
We need to stop exporting our well-pyaing middle class jobs!
1
Hubbard is wrong and the President is correct! Conservatives are narcissists and liars.It is time for the middle and lower economic classes to exert their majority will and take their due. The minority has ruled too long!
1
The idea that taxing the income of the top 1% more will suddenly strip these people of the drive and determination that got them where they are is absurd.
How can returning the capital gains tax rate to where it was during the Reagan years possible harm the rich? Ask any conservative and they will tell you the Reagan years were the best ever.
The real threat is in states like Kansas and Arizona and Louisiana where the trend is to cut or even, as the new governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, campaigned for, to eliminate the corporate and personal income tax and raise the sales tax.
If conservatives don't want to redistribute income after it is earned, then let's redistribute it before it is earned by unshackling labor from laws preventing it from organizing and bargaining collectively.
Now there is a free market approach any conservative should love.
How can returning the capital gains tax rate to where it was during the Reagan years possible harm the rich? Ask any conservative and they will tell you the Reagan years were the best ever.
The real threat is in states like Kansas and Arizona and Louisiana where the trend is to cut or even, as the new governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, campaigned for, to eliminate the corporate and personal income tax and raise the sales tax.
If conservatives don't want to redistribute income after it is earned, then let's redistribute it before it is earned by unshackling labor from laws preventing it from organizing and bargaining collectively.
Now there is a free market approach any conservative should love.
1
Glenn Hubbard was the guy in the movie "Too Big to Fail" who was partially responsible for the Great Recession of 2008. When asked a pointed question, he became very disturbed and asked the reporters to leave. And, he's not a very good professor!
3
Fine dude. Apparently yos are OK with wealth distribution as long as it is the wealthy raping everyone else. Around here we call that theft. How about we call President Obama's plan reparations for the "redistribution" of funds to the wealthy over the last 30 years. It isn't as if you rich addle-pated louts will miss it, and frankly, the rest of us won't miss you.
3
How is it the redistribution of wealth is fine when it's redistributed upward through tax policy, but it is an anathema when it's the middle and lower income people who benefit. GOP, thy name is hypocrisy.
5
Obama's economic policy is an updated version of Burn, Baby Burn.
1
Dear Mr. Hubbard,
Takest thou most foul speech which emanates from a black soul and pudding brain, and depart from these pages. Thy history ringeth with the loud church bell of war, and the dulcet tones of betrayal. Thy schoolmaster comes derelict in his duty to instruct thee in plain speech, rather thou chooseth language cloaked as a wolf in sheep's wool.
Depart from these pages O Benedict!!
Takest thou most foul speech which emanates from a black soul and pudding brain, and depart from these pages. Thy history ringeth with the loud church bell of war, and the dulcet tones of betrayal. Thy schoolmaster comes derelict in his duty to instruct thee in plain speech, rather thou chooseth language cloaked as a wolf in sheep's wool.
Depart from these pages O Benedict!!
2
"But the president’s proposals do invite a case for a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, one based not on redistribution but on growth, work and opportunity."
And, what if those three things (growth, work, and opportunity) are not available to someone, like - say - those at the bottom of the income distribution? Oh, sorry...never mind. Trivial details.
And, what if those three things (growth, work, and opportunity) are not available to someone, like - say - those at the bottom of the income distribution? Oh, sorry...never mind. Trivial details.
1
Don't disagree with many of the writer's assertions but it seems to me there is plenty of blame to go around in the areas mentioned as being neglected. The polarization of two party politics in the US is preventing action on a host of critical issues. Kicking the bums out doesn't seem to be helping.
1
To better understand who is the author of this piece , I scrolled down and see that Mr. Hubbard was chairman of George Bush's Council of Economic Advisers . Based on that, I give him a zero rating as far as competence and credibility, I then compare the astounding success of Obama's economic advisers in bringing this country back to prosperity from the train wreck created by Bush's advisers. And please explain Mr. Hubbard while a small business with a single owner should pay the same tax rate as large conglomerates with billions of dollars in profits?And why should employers who pay below poverty level wages get a subsidy from the government by paying those workers earned tax credits or
subsidies to compensate for fact that the employer is paying absurdly low wages?
What is not discussed is free trade that benefits US workers and does not take away their jobs; retraining of workers at employer and government expense for workers who are no longer able to compete for jobs due to automation and technology advances. Also not mentioned is the absurdity of people like Romney paying 14% tax rates
subsidies to compensate for fact that the employer is paying absurdly low wages?
What is not discussed is free trade that benefits US workers and does not take away their jobs; retraining of workers at employer and government expense for workers who are no longer able to compete for jobs due to automation and technology advances. Also not mentioned is the absurdity of people like Romney paying 14% tax rates
2
The economy grew at a 5% clip last quarter. That's pretty impressive growth. Is Hubbard claiming that this isn't growth, or that we should in fact be growing even more--i.e., faster than at any time in the last few decades? And who precisely would benefit from further growth, considering that 90% of the population is facing sinking wages?
Perhaps the outlaw banks for whom Mr. Hubbard serves as star witness for 1200 an hour?
Perhaps the outlaw banks for whom Mr. Hubbard serves as star witness for 1200 an hour?
2
Prof. K comments:
For The Love Of Capital Income
Shorter Glenn Hubbard: Means-tested programs and tax credits are a terrible thing, because benefits that fall when your income rises discourage work. Also, we must save money by means-testing Social Security and Medicare.
The real point, of course, is that Hubbard is defending his pride and joy, the 2003 cuts in tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, which were supposedly designed to spur business investment. They didn’t — we have what amounts to a controlled experiment, because the dividend tax cut had no effect on closely held corporations, which can therefore be used as a control group. And what the comparison shows is that the tax cut didn’t boost investment or employment at all — all it did was boost payouts to shareholders.
And who were those shareholders? Glad you asked. According to the Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of the benefits from the dividend tax cut went to the top 1 percent; more than half went to individuals with incomes of more than a million dollars a year.
So who, exactly, has been waging class warfare?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-inc...
For The Love Of Capital Income
Shorter Glenn Hubbard: Means-tested programs and tax credits are a terrible thing, because benefits that fall when your income rises discourage work. Also, we must save money by means-testing Social Security and Medicare.
The real point, of course, is that Hubbard is defending his pride and joy, the 2003 cuts in tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, which were supposedly designed to spur business investment. They didn’t — we have what amounts to a controlled experiment, because the dividend tax cut had no effect on closely held corporations, which can therefore be used as a control group. And what the comparison shows is that the tax cut didn’t boost investment or employment at all — all it did was boost payouts to shareholders.
And who were those shareholders? Glad you asked. According to the Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of the benefits from the dividend tax cut went to the top 1 percent; more than half went to individuals with incomes of more than a million dollars a year.
So who, exactly, has been waging class warfare?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-inc...
4
Mr. Hubbard likely wouldn't be pleased with much about President Obama.
He was on Mitt Romney's economic team in addition to having been George W. Bush's economic advisor. 'Nuff said.
http://www.harrywalker.com/speaker/Larry-Summers-R-Glenn-Hubbard.cfm?Spe...
He was on Mitt Romney's economic team in addition to having been George W. Bush's economic advisor. 'Nuff said.
http://www.harrywalker.com/speaker/Larry-Summers-R-Glenn-Hubbard.cfm?Spe...
2
That's some matchup, Summer vs Hubbard. It's the 99% that loses that fight.
1
Redistribution. It was not called that in the 1980's and 1990's. It was called fair tax on the wealthy.
2
Hubbard calls for a single rate for business profit taxes. Better would be the State of WA model - a single rate on Revenues of businesses, not profits. Why? Businesses demand government services whether profitable or not; taxpayers shouldn't subsidize unprofitable businesses by collecting no tax from them. Secondarily the definition of "profit" has been gamed so it doesn't mean much and can be manipulated. If a business does business in the US they should pay a tax on their revenues from doing so. It would be a much lower rate than existing corporate tax rates. Hubbard has a good idea to raise Soc Sec payments to people who've been poor all their lives. But privatizing health care insurance, including Medicare, just perpetuates the 25% of waste in health care from private insurance administrative costs and profits (Medicare requires about 5% admin costs - putting 20% more into actual health care). Economists are supposed to disdain inefficiency.
1
Thank you for publishing an article that is much more coherent to economic reality than to politics.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
It is just too easy to vilify the financial system. It is a very popular way of neglecting the government’s own responsibility as a financial manager.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
It is just too easy to vilify the financial system. It is a very popular way of neglecting the government’s own responsibility as a financial manager.
2
Hate to beat a dead horse but the rich in this country have successfully created a paradigm about taxes that has enshrined preferential tax treatement for themselves. Reagan sold the country a bill of goods that cutting taxes on the rich would benefit the country. 40 years later, it is obvious that redistribution of wealth upwards benefitted only the rich. When clear thinkers point out the obvious and suggest reversing that policy, redistribution has become a dirty word. There's no reason not to do it as well as removing the preferential treatment of investment income. Sure, raising taxes on the rich will not solve the systemic problems in our economy but that is not an argument for not doing it.
1
An article ran here in the times just days ago that reported that 1 percent of the population possessed more of the world's wealth than the remaining 99 percent taken together and this dude has the audacity to criticize some kind of redistribution? I was not aware that the Times invited Republicans to answer the State of the Union on their pages.
4
Excuse me if I skim past an article penned by the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under George W. Bush. Glenn, your policies already collapsed the nation's economy once; and we're all doing fine now, thanks.
5
Here is Dean Hubbard’s four-point plan explained through an old nursery rhyme:
Old Dean Hubbard
Went to his cupboard,
To give the middle class a bone
When he came there,
The cupboard was bare,
And so the middle class had none.
He went to the tax collector’s
To buy them some temporary aid
When he came back
The middle class was dead!
He went to the doctor's
To buy them a HSA;
When he came back
The middle class was DOA.
He took a gander at education
To get them some training;
When he came back
They were still not graduating.
He went to the markets
To strengthen their security blanket;
When he came back
The middle class had decamped.
Mercifully, Dean Hubbard has only a four-point plan, because “Old Mother Hubbard” does go on and on, and I couldn’t carry this parody much longer.
Old Dean Hubbard
Went to his cupboard,
To give the middle class a bone
When he came there,
The cupboard was bare,
And so the middle class had none.
He went to the tax collector’s
To buy them some temporary aid
When he came back
The middle class was dead!
He went to the doctor's
To buy them a HSA;
When he came back
The middle class was DOA.
He took a gander at education
To get them some training;
When he came back
They were still not graduating.
He went to the markets
To strengthen their security blanket;
When he came back
The middle class had decamped.
Mercifully, Dean Hubbard has only a four-point plan, because “Old Mother Hubbard” does go on and on, and I couldn’t carry this parody much longer.
4
Obama came across as wanting to force the rich, thus the capable, to finance the poor, thus the incompetents. Karl Marx had the same perspectives ("The Communist Manifesto, 1848") which then led to Lenin's Russian communism. Things in Moscow right now are not working out too well.
Being rich automatically makes you 'capable' versus the 'incompetent' poor slobs at the lower ladder of the economy?
I know quite a few very very rich people with an IQ that resembles the room temperature. Some of them can't even keep a nine hole golf score in their empty little heads.
I know quite a few very very rich people with an IQ that resembles the room temperature. Some of them can't even keep a nine hole golf score in their empty little heads.
2
"So how can we enhance growth, work and opportunity?"
For some reason, I get the uneasy feeling that Glenn means the OPPORTUNITY for rich people to GROW their wealth using other people's WORK.
For some reason, I get the uneasy feeling that Glenn means the OPPORTUNITY for rich people to GROW their wealth using other people's WORK.
3
In other words, more of the same -- let's continue policies that enrich the 1% and impoverish the rest of us.
1
Unfortunately the writer is wasting his time with an op-ed in The Times, whose readers have been indoctrinated with the liberal mantra that Tax and Spend is the only possible economic policy. This has led us to the situation where the top 10% of taxpayers are paying the vast majority of taxes and 47% pay NO tax at all! We are all in this together and EVERYONE should be required to pay some level of taxes.
Let's truly reward work by raising the minimum wage to a livable wage. No corporation should be able to push the costs of their employees off onto tax payers. People who are working hard, full time, should not be receiving food stamps and Medicaid because corporations can get away with paying them an insufficient wage and providing no benefits. Corporations shouldn't be moochers.
How about that, Mr. Hubbard?
How about that, Mr. Hubbard?
2
A more progressive tax structure is not "redistribution."
4
George W. Bush crashed the US economy, and Glenn Hubbard was his chief economic adviser. Why is the NY Times publishing this rehashing of "trickle down economics" which have been proved to be disastrous (except for the rich) since Reagan's day.
In fact, "trickle down economics" HAS caused a redistribution of wealth and President Obama is suggesting a reversal of this trend, with great antagonism by Republicans.
In fact, "trickle down economics" HAS caused a redistribution of wealth and President Obama is suggesting a reversal of this trend, with great antagonism by Republicans.
2
Any conversation on this subject must first acknowledge the biggest redistribution in US history: the 2008 government bailout and protection of the downside of those who, relatively speaking, have had every break in life (people working in financial services). Also, the gift keeps on giving with the carried interest loophole which confers capital gains tax rates on those who do not have their cash capital at risk. Finally, with the ongoing evisceration of Dowd Frank and other sensible financial reforms(i.e., the Volcker rule, reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, limitations on trading "naked" derivatives, etc), this same group is setting itself up for another upward redistribution in the near future.
So really, Obama is talking about a reallocation of government handouts that have already been redistributed upward.
So really, Obama is talking about a reallocation of government handouts that have already been redistributed upward.
1
This article should have been titled "Hubbard's Bad Economic Ideas", since that is what it is actually about.
Lowering taxes on the wealthy (even further than they've already been lowered) will not create magical economic prosperity - there is no past evidence to suggest that it would be so. Hubbard's choice to project this set of proposals, at a time when the economy has already recovered, but too many have been left out of the recovery, goes to show how completely divorced he and his contingent are from reality.
Lowering taxes on the wealthy (even further than they've already been lowered) will not create magical economic prosperity - there is no past evidence to suggest that it would be so. Hubbard's choice to project this set of proposals, at a time when the economy has already recovered, but too many have been left out of the recovery, goes to show how completely divorced he and his contingent are from reality.
2
More supply-side drivel from Mr. Hubbard. These ideas have been proven wrong, and yet his ilk keeps chanting about how tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful will trickle down. It just doesn't work.
Read "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" for an explanation of why this doesn't work, and what we should be doing to promote economic opportunity for all hard working people.
Read "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" for an explanation of why this doesn't work, and what we should be doing to promote economic opportunity for all hard working people.
2
As others here have noted, all of Mr. Hubbard's ideas reflect the failed policies of the previous administration. But it is the cynical confidence with which Mr. Hubbard and others talk about social mobility and job creation while espousing policies -- corporate tax cuts, tax cuts for the wealthy, more unregulated business for money managers -- that will increase the power and wealth of the few at the expense of the many. The message is the same -- dont tax the wealthy and cut programs that provide financial safety and security for the poor and middle class. It is the same message of greed that has shrunk the middle class and increased the power of the top 10%. We are rapidly approaching a government for the wealthy, run by the wealthy, and for the benefit of all the wealthy. The rest of us will just have to eat cake I guess.
4
Mr. Hubbard, corporate America has been growing by leaps and bounds with record profits and a record high stock market while jobs and wages have stagnated or regressed. So what is your solution again?
2
NYT readers who don't peruse the comments are in danger of being "Fox-Newsed " when discredited (see the movie, "Inside Job," by Charles Ferguson) financial fraud co-conspirators like Glenn Hubbard are allowed to peddle their larcenous ideology without caveat.
4
"But the president’s proposals do invite a case for a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, one based not on redistribution but on growth, work and opportunity."
Translation: All benefits shall accrue to the top one percent and no one else because they're simply not worthy.
If conservative economists were doctors, they'd still be prescribing leeches. Indeed, Hubbard is prescribing increased leeching by the upper one percent.
Translation: All benefits shall accrue to the top one percent and no one else because they're simply not worthy.
If conservative economists were doctors, they'd still be prescribing leeches. Indeed, Hubbard is prescribing increased leeching by the upper one percent.
2
I have never figured out the constantly parroted connection between education and jobs. I am not that stupid. I have an Ivy League education. I still don't see the connection. All the job applicants I see are well educated and overqualified for the jobs we have. As a result many are bored with the work and unhappy. Obviously at this point in our national development we do not have enough jobs for all of our citizens, let alone the citizens of Mexico and the third world. How about a guaranteed annual income for all citizens? It is affordable. It could be structured to reward work. Education could be pursued for its own sake. Mothers could take care of their kids perhaps breaking the cycle of bad parenting, poverty etc. we see in our minority population. Obviously the redistribution of the Reagan revolution is not working for the average citizen......even as it was reworked by Bob Rubin and Clinton.....and now by Clinton lite.......Obama and his Harvard lawyer advisors.
2
Glenn Hubbard advised Bush to get into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to squander a $3 Trillion American surplus inherited form Clinton, then reduce taxes on the rich, and let the bankers inflate a housing bubble that shattered the global economy.
Glenn Hubbard is the personification of the ongoing BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS.
Glenn Hubbard is the personification of the ongoing BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS.
3
I agree with Mr. Hubbard that we don't need ideological talking points. That's why we don't need statements like this, "The second step is to use the individual income tax to better reward work."
The effective tax rate in the U.S. is currently the lowest in the developed world. Literally nobody is choosing to not work because their income tax is too high. Therefore, lowering marginal tax rates on income would do nothing to encourage job growth.
So how about this instead, "The second step is to use our tax system to better encourage job growth. This would be done by increasing tax rates on highest income earners and using the additional revenue to invest in infrastructure and education."
But then he would just be paraphrasing Obama.
The effective tax rate in the U.S. is currently the lowest in the developed world. Literally nobody is choosing to not work because their income tax is too high. Therefore, lowering marginal tax rates on income would do nothing to encourage job growth.
So how about this instead, "The second step is to use our tax system to better encourage job growth. This would be done by increasing tax rates on highest income earners and using the additional revenue to invest in infrastructure and education."
But then he would just be paraphrasing Obama.
2
That this shill is the DEAN of the Columbia Business School speaks volumes about:
a. Columbia
b.business schools
c. business "ethics" (and I use the term loosely)
It shows why it is so hard to write satire in 2014. In France, it has been shown (in the eyes of some) to even be a capital crime.
a. Columbia
b.business schools
c. business "ethics" (and I use the term loosely)
It shows why it is so hard to write satire in 2014. In France, it has been shown (in the eyes of some) to even be a capital crime.
7
"But the president’s proposals do invite a case for a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, one based not on redistribution but on growth, work and opportunity."
And there follow four proposals, a couple of which make sense. Wow, this would have really meant something had they been proposed by, say, a sitting Presidential Chairman of Economic Advisors. What? He didn't back then? Oh, that's very different. Never mind...
And there follow four proposals, a couple of which make sense. Wow, this would have really meant something had they been proposed by, say, a sitting Presidential Chairman of Economic Advisors. What? He didn't back then? Oh, that's very different. Never mind...
1
Hubbard's ideas as many have stated heretofore are nothing new. Just more of the same old trickle down/supply side/Reaganomics garbage that we've heard since daddy Bush labelled it voodoo economics. If these policies work so well then why have we only piled up huge budget deficits, seen wealth inequality grow to it's largest gap since the time of the last Gilded Age and the slow bleeding and destruction of the middle class?
George W got almost everything he wanted after the shock doctrine like, PNAC Pearl Harbor event known as Sept. 11. (with the exception of privatizing soc. sec. and giving the security of our ports to a middle eastern company) yet at the end of his eight yrs the national debt almost doubled and all the promised job growth that's supposed to result from trickle down didn't happen. You all know how it ended. Praise tax cuts on the corp and upper incomes and deregulation! Keep in mind Hubbard is the same guy who told Jaime Johnson in the latter's documentary "The One Percent" to "Give me your best shot".
Does he represent the ivy league professor that Mike Huckabee is railing about?
Let them eat cake Mr. Hubbard, let them eat cake.
George W got almost everything he wanted after the shock doctrine like, PNAC Pearl Harbor event known as Sept. 11. (with the exception of privatizing soc. sec. and giving the security of our ports to a middle eastern company) yet at the end of his eight yrs the national debt almost doubled and all the promised job growth that's supposed to result from trickle down didn't happen. You all know how it ended. Praise tax cuts on the corp and upper incomes and deregulation! Keep in mind Hubbard is the same guy who told Jaime Johnson in the latter's documentary "The One Percent" to "Give me your best shot".
Does he represent the ivy league professor that Mike Huckabee is railing about?
Let them eat cake Mr. Hubbard, let them eat cake.
1
Haven't read the article yet, but wasn't Hubbard McCain's or Romney's or some Republican's economic advisor? Need we say more? 40 years of killing the economy for the 99%. Why would anyone listen to him or any Republican?
The Republican economic approach, trickle-down, circa 1980 but still alive, has always been trickle-up.
Anyway, as the country continues to go under, we progressives take some comfort knowing that one day historians will write how the Republicans destroyed the economy. Not much comfort, but a little. What more can we ask?
The Republican economic approach, trickle-down, circa 1980 but still alive, has always been trickle-up.
Anyway, as the country continues to go under, we progressives take some comfort knowing that one day historians will write how the Republicans destroyed the economy. Not much comfort, but a little. What more can we ask?
1
I am weary of conservative politicians speaking of Business when they really mean the top 1% and the immense conglomerates and banking, pharmaceutical empires etc. that benefit them. So, if you want to help business how about only helping businesses with less than a hundred employees. How about some anti big business. The ones that close the plants, and shift the jobs, that wipe out the unions. How about a fracturing of the GOP into little guys and behemoths. Never happen of course because all the little GOP'ers think they are big guys. And this is why the middle class has destroyed itself aided by the Grand Old Party.
1
A better title for Mr Hubbard's proposals would be "Rearranging the Deck Chairs on the Titanic."
1
Professor,
You continue to insist that failed, ideological based, economic "steps" are THE answer. Trickle down "voodoo economics" has been a spectacular (and quantifiable) failure and your attempt to repackage it is disingenuous at best, and fantasy at least. In my world real class, your essay is a failure.
You continue to insist that failed, ideological based, economic "steps" are THE answer. Trickle down "voodoo economics" has been a spectacular (and quantifiable) failure and your attempt to repackage it is disingenuous at best, and fantasy at least. In my world real class, your essay is a failure.
1
These measures would cause alarm among many now on the dole and even more among politicians who routinely buy their votes by promising them more. True, the changes would lead to a more prosperous nation from top to bottom, and afford ample opportunity to anyone willing to work and save to improve his life and provide a better future for his family. It's just that the politics that are wrong.
It should be noted that we have one of the most "progressive" tax structures in the world. European Democratic Socialists - that the American Left adores - use much more regressive taxation, in the form of VAT. Here in the United States, the bottom three quintiles take more from the system than they pay in, the fourth quintile pays about $700 more than they receive from government, and the fifth quintile - the top 20% - pay about $47,000 more than they receive in governmental handouts. If someone is not paying their share, it is certainly not the top 20%.
1
Why is it a bad thing if asset prices declined or rose more slowly due to increased capital gains taxes? Your article stated, "Likewise, raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion." Asset prices are in a bubble due to low interest rates and a savings glut (which income inequality contributes to since higher income earners save more of their income). Increasing capital gains as well as reducing the home mortgage deduction would indeed likely result in lower asset prices, but these lower asset prices would hardly harm economic expansion. Companies may buy back less stock as stock prices fell and use that money for real projects. More importantly housing prices could decline, becoming more affordable. Economic expansion would not be harmed and inequality would be reduced with this tax reform.
1
There will never be limits on tax deductions for more affluent households. Rafalca never loses that battle.
"Dean of the Columbia Business School." Scary. Apparently he's in charge of teaching a new generation of businessmen to give the 99% the business.
2
Like so many on the right, Mr. Hubbard's underlying assumptions are stingy and parsimonious.
He sees a static pie, and frets over who is dividing it and the worthiness of the recipients. Of course, his notions of worth leave out all considerations of advantages of birth and upbringing.
Even if some of them might acknowledge it as valid, the idea that we all benefit from enabling each of us to make the contribution we are capable of, seems not to be something worthy of consideration.
Yet, even if one is not moved by their personal tragedies, one has only to spend some time listening to the conversation of people who spend much of their lives on street corners in the hope that something, anything, might happen, or people working dead end jobs, or people serving a prison sentence, or patients on a mental ward, or even the ravings of drunks and drugs addicts, to become aware of the enormous waste of intelligence and energy they collectively represent.
Instead of snipping and sniping about who is paying what to help whom and how to maximize the private sector benefit of such "wealth transfers" as he grudgingly acknowledges might be unavoidable, if their grinch hearts' could expand just a little, people like Mr. Hubbard might be able to see that, on their own terms, they should be driven by a desire to do whatever it takes to correct such gross inefficiencies.
He sees a static pie, and frets over who is dividing it and the worthiness of the recipients. Of course, his notions of worth leave out all considerations of advantages of birth and upbringing.
Even if some of them might acknowledge it as valid, the idea that we all benefit from enabling each of us to make the contribution we are capable of, seems not to be something worthy of consideration.
Yet, even if one is not moved by their personal tragedies, one has only to spend some time listening to the conversation of people who spend much of their lives on street corners in the hope that something, anything, might happen, or people working dead end jobs, or people serving a prison sentence, or patients on a mental ward, or even the ravings of drunks and drugs addicts, to become aware of the enormous waste of intelligence and energy they collectively represent.
Instead of snipping and sniping about who is paying what to help whom and how to maximize the private sector benefit of such "wealth transfers" as he grudgingly acknowledges might be unavoidable, if their grinch hearts' could expand just a little, people like Mr. Hubbard might be able to see that, on their own terms, they should be driven by a desire to do whatever it takes to correct such gross inefficiencies.
2
A host of bad ideas, except for the wealthy.
1
Thank you for publishing an article that is much more coherent to economic reality than to politics.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
Our government is ineffective on so many levels, including on the monitoring and transparency of its finances.
It wants to impose on corporations something it doesn’t impose on itself.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
Our government is ineffective on so many levels, including on the monitoring and transparency of its finances.
It wants to impose on corporations something it doesn’t impose on itself.
1
Why is it common sense that there is an urgent need to find a solution for this income inequality in America? We all tired of knowing that the top 1% gets the largest share of the wealth produced in this country, while the rest of us need to juggle with many low paid part time jobs to make ends meet. Yet, in the last election, we have given the House and Senate to the Republicans which we all know will continue this same policy of trickle down economy that only trickles down into the rich's pockets.
1
The writer can't be serious: he is putting the cart before the horse. Obama is building horses that can do the work: it makes much more sense.
What good is it to offer jobs that people can't do? It only encourages more outsourcing to foreign countries, strengthening their economies and making our own people joining the unemployment lines.
What good is it to offer jobs that people can't do? It only encourages more outsourcing to foreign countries, strengthening their economies and making our own people joining the unemployment lines.
16
Amazing how conservative "reforms" for taxation use kind and gentle terminology to state, over and over and over, 'less tax for the rich.'
You guys just don't get it, do you?
(well, actually, you do, but you feel oh-so entitled to your wealth.)
You guys just don't get it, do you?
(well, actually, you do, but you feel oh-so entitled to your wealth.)
1
As far as 2 years at a community or other college for all kids go, we are the wealthiest nation on earth. You mean to tell me we cannot afford that? What's the point of being the wealthiest nation on earth if we cannot provide top-notch 2015 education and health care to all. We are talking about lives, a bright future for all, not bragging rights. If they run short of funds our government can cancel a few of those 2,424 needless F35 airplanes that they ordered for $210 million a piece. (Do the math.)
With regard to the tax rate, if you make enough to pay the highest rates, you can afford to pay another 1.5% income tax.
Insofar as the corporate income tax goes, let's reduce it from 35% to 18% and DEEM all income earned by all corporations including the money that they and their phoney-baloney subsidiaries earn abroad to be US income and subject to US income tax whether or not they ever bring that money home. This is is not inequitable, we already do this in regard to individuals. (Of course the corporations, like individuals, would get tax credits for any taxes paid to foreign governments.) Do that and not only will the tax money come rolling in but foreign corporation will move here to take advantage of our lower tax rates instead of the other way around and fewer US companies will move overseas to take advantage of tax breaks.
Now if we do all this, we can lower the tax rates for all. It's not "income redistribution", an obnoxious catch-phrase, it's fairness.
With regard to the tax rate, if you make enough to pay the highest rates, you can afford to pay another 1.5% income tax.
Insofar as the corporate income tax goes, let's reduce it from 35% to 18% and DEEM all income earned by all corporations including the money that they and their phoney-baloney subsidiaries earn abroad to be US income and subject to US income tax whether or not they ever bring that money home. This is is not inequitable, we already do this in regard to individuals. (Of course the corporations, like individuals, would get tax credits for any taxes paid to foreign governments.) Do that and not only will the tax money come rolling in but foreign corporation will move here to take advantage of our lower tax rates instead of the other way around and fewer US companies will move overseas to take advantage of tax breaks.
Now if we do all this, we can lower the tax rates for all. It's not "income redistribution", an obnoxious catch-phrase, it's fairness.
"What's the point of being the wealthiest nation on earth if we cannot provide top-notch 2015 education and health care to all."
Apparently, the point is to make it possible for .001 percent of the population to have so much money that they have to park it in the Cayman Islands, since even Mitt can't come up with more stupid ways to waste it on car elevators and more homes than the British monarchy.
Apparently, the point is to make it possible for .001 percent of the population to have so much money that they have to park it in the Cayman Islands, since even Mitt can't come up with more stupid ways to waste it on car elevators and more homes than the British monarchy.
1
Hedge fund managers can claim their fees at low capital gains tax rates. Why?
Is wealth redistribution for the wealthy OK with you?
Is wealth redistribution for the wealthy OK with you?
3
Leave it to the wealthy Dean of a sociopath training facility - business school - and former "economic advisor" to Dubya to come up with these "great ideas." This guy trains the people - Wall Street sociopaths - who tanked our economy. The title of this editorial is misleading as well. Mr. Hubbard would have us think that raising taxes on the wealthy is redistribution of wealth while strengthening social security and medicare with "government paying part of the cost," and tax deductions for education and training don't qualify as redistribution. And I won't even begin to rail on the distinctly rich, white notion of "making work more attractive," implying that the unemployed are ALL lazy folks rejecting the plethora of (non-existent) high quality jobs that are begging to be filled.
2
Just more GOP noise. Hey, one of George McGovern's planks in 1972 was to "close loopholes that have benefited large corporations and the rich at the expense of the low and middle income groups." Sound familiar? The GOP has been the iron curtain that has prevented this for decades. And anytime a Republican talks about simplifying the tax rate, look out. In NC, the right-wing legislature flattered out the income tax, doing away with a somewhat progressive system in place since the 1920s. Now they tout that they brought tax cuts to all. Trouble is the gains went almost entirely to the top. Most folks got 0.01 percent. Of course, they had to make up that lost revenue in the giveback to the wealthy by adding taxes on such things as tickets to see a movie. And, of course, it all puts upward pressure on property taxes, the most regressive taxation there is because it does not consider your ability to pay! Let's call this Bush White House math what it is: a smoke screen to protect the interests of the rich.
4
To all out there that read "George W. Bush" somewhere in or around the article and immediately become apoplectic, there are some good ideas in this piece. "Fair distribution" or "Redistribution," whatever you want to call it, you can't get around the fact that all human beings are not created equal. Neither conservatives or liberals have a monopoly on the truth. Open your minds and be part of the solution.
"Growth and work" will occur with redistribution first, paid workers are spenders.
True - but only as long as the "working" takes place before the payment!
This column would have been better titled Glenn Hubbard's Bad Ideas on the Economy - Still, I don't have a problem with lower corporate taxes as long as we change the way we assess them. Every company doing business in America should have to account for profits earned in this country and pay taxes on them. We also need to boost the top marginal rates back into the 75%+ range. Our economy has always done best when the highest earners have paid well over 50% on the margin. There's much more we need to do, high tariffs on imported goods to incentivize American manufacturing is essential. Finally, investment income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. Simple ideas that work for all but the 1%. That's why they'll never be adopted.
1
Why do we need to hear from this guy? How does he have any credibility?
"Mr. Hubbard also brings to this job a certain amount of baggage. He appeared briefly in “Inside Job,” a scathing and Oscar-winning 2010 documentary about the financial crisis. The film has a segment about high-profile professors who blessed many of the financial instruments that led to the fiasco. Enter Mr. Hubbard, who is presented as a leading thinker far too cozy with industries he ought to be assessing at a critical distance."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/business/glenn-hubbard-is-romneys-go-t...
"Mr. Hubbard also brings to this job a certain amount of baggage. He appeared briefly in “Inside Job,” a scathing and Oscar-winning 2010 documentary about the financial crisis. The film has a segment about high-profile professors who blessed many of the financial instruments that led to the fiasco. Enter Mr. Hubbard, who is presented as a leading thinker far too cozy with industries he ought to be assessing at a critical distance."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/business/glenn-hubbard-is-romneys-go-t...
3
If you want to make work "More Attractive" corporate America needs to pay enough to support a life, (Forget a life style, just a life) to everyone.
With a pension and decent health care for ANYONE who works.
For the American Working class, on display at any fast food restaurant, it is rapidly becoming a case of repeating the old Eastern Bloc joke, "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". Except much of the work is dangerous and bad for our health and well being.
With a pension and decent health care for ANYONE who works.
For the American Working class, on display at any fast food restaurant, it is rapidly becoming a case of repeating the old Eastern Bloc joke, "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". Except much of the work is dangerous and bad for our health and well being.
3
Tax credits won't make the difference between a low wage worker being able to afford health care/health insurance or not. A Columbia dean ought to be able to figure that out.
2
Considering the Bush Tax Cuts got us into this mess, why would anyone listen to Hubbard?
It is another Laffer curve proposal, the rich get richer and the middle class become the poor
Its time to go back to what worked in the past and not propose failed ideas as new.
We need to move forward to a bright future not the society of the movie "Idiocracy" which is where Hubbard would take us.
It is another Laffer curve proposal, the rich get richer and the middle class become the poor
Its time to go back to what worked in the past and not propose failed ideas as new.
We need to move forward to a bright future not the society of the movie "Idiocracy" which is where Hubbard would take us.
1
Why does anyone listen to this guy? He was one of the architects of the economic policies that led to the 2008 global collapse of financial markets. There should be a disclaimer included along with anything he writes, that reliance on his ideas and policy suggestions could be hazardous to the country's financial health.
1
I share Mr. Hubbard's view that serious measures are needed to reform the tax system, reform some entitlement programs and stimulate economic growth.
Our current tax system is unnecessarily Byzantine, some entitlement programs, namely Social Security Disability, are out of control and more decently paying jobs are a must if the middle class is to survive.
Nonetheless, increasing the all too often resulting confusion and mental anguish that seniors face when trying to understand the many aspects of choosing from myriad private healthcare plans is hardly an answer. Competition and choice are not always the best ways to address every single issue. Healthcare should not be a grab bag, hope for the best program and certainly there should be some issues that lie outside the profit motive.
As for jobs and growth, the only way, as I see it, to create a large number of jobs that pay decently is large scale public works program to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. Otherwise, pretty much all we'll get is more minimum wage jobs without benefits and some better paying jobs in specialized fields that demand specialized education and skills that the general workforce lacks.
Our current tax system is unnecessarily Byzantine, some entitlement programs, namely Social Security Disability, are out of control and more decently paying jobs are a must if the middle class is to survive.
Nonetheless, increasing the all too often resulting confusion and mental anguish that seniors face when trying to understand the many aspects of choosing from myriad private healthcare plans is hardly an answer. Competition and choice are not always the best ways to address every single issue. Healthcare should not be a grab bag, hope for the best program and certainly there should be some issues that lie outside the profit motive.
As for jobs and growth, the only way, as I see it, to create a large number of jobs that pay decently is large scale public works program to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. Otherwise, pretty much all we'll get is more minimum wage jobs without benefits and some better paying jobs in specialized fields that demand specialized education and skills that the general workforce lacks.
9
Social Security is not "out of control", that's another GOP myth. Modest increases in the income cap on the SS tax would bring it into balance.
Also, Social Security is an entitlement program because workers who have paid into it all their lives are ENTITLED to it.
"Entitlement" is not a dirty word, especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare.
Also, Social Security is an entitlement program because workers who have paid into it all their lives are ENTITLED to it.
"Entitlement" is not a dirty word, especially when it comes to Social Security and Medicare.
2
Obama is a smart man. I almost felt like the SOTU was purposeful satire. Like, he knew he wasn't getting anything he wanted, so he set forth this ultra-liberal agenda, as if to say, I'm as likely to get all of this stuff passed as anything else in the next year.
Or maybe he's so mad at his party, he's setting them up for failure by alienating all the moderates. Based on that speech, Republicans would probably get the swing votes.
Either way, I think he surely had an agenda that did not involve actually passing all of those proposals.
Or maybe he's so mad at his party, he's setting them up for failure by alienating all the moderates. Based on that speech, Republicans would probably get the swing votes.
Either way, I think he surely had an agenda that did not involve actually passing all of those proposals.
1
But he certainly has changed the talking points, seized the agenda. And frankly, he got the attention of both my grown working children...wondering where such down to earth and needed basics were actually being addressed.
(One has a great job...I hope the demands of it and her family don't cause her health issues; but the child care costs are exhorbitant.)
(One has a great job...I hope the demands of it and her family don't cause her health issues; but the child care costs are exhorbitant.)
Why are so many commentators worried about being 'fair' to the super rich? I guarantee you that most of them have absolutely no concern about being fair to you.
74
same old same old from the bushies. Have you forgotten that you handed Obama The Second Great Depression and two failed wars (un)paid for by tax
cuts (mostly) for the rich? And then, you mounted a campaign of "obstruction and NO!".
Why do you think your failed policies will work now? More importantly, the worst problem we face is the all time high disparity of wealth between rich and poor.
In European history such wealth disparity has produced revolution during recession.
Should we not pay some bucks in taxes to avoid having our houses burned
down?
cuts (mostly) for the rich? And then, you mounted a campaign of "obstruction and NO!".
Why do you think your failed policies will work now? More importantly, the worst problem we face is the all time high disparity of wealth between rich and poor.
In European history such wealth disparity has produced revolution during recession.
Should we not pay some bucks in taxes to avoid having our houses burned
down?
3
Why would any rational individual take the advice of the a former Chair of George Bush's Council of Economic Advisers seriously?
This old repetition of Reaganomics is tiresome. Remember the "Laffer Curve?" It should have been laughed out of town, but it caused more tears than laughter when it reared its ugly head.
This old repetition of Reaganomics is tiresome. Remember the "Laffer Curve?" It should have been laughed out of town, but it caused more tears than laughter when it reared its ugly head.
2
The plan for Medicare is a typical Republican effort to dismantle the program. Giving part of the program to health insurances only fattens their holdings and leaves out the poor and the struggling middle class. It also leaves out anyone with either expensive medical needs or those with pre-existing conditions.
1
There is too much money flowing into the hands of the few. Our Capitalist society is becoming perverse. The tax laws are written and adjusted to shield the enormously wealthy from paying their fair share. The campaign laws are written to ensure that the enormously wealthy can buy legislators and Judges. The Poor are saved by the social safety net for essentials. However, their ability to rise up is severely restricted in many communities.. The Upper Middle class and lower upper class can fend for themselves. The lower middle class is at Risk. These working families and Children are victims of our society. President Obama is correct in pointing out the economic trap that they live in. Capitalism alone is a harsh system if you aren't one of the privileged or have not been able to work your way up to mid to upper middle class. Our goal should be to help move the next generation up the ladder. Taxing the multimillionaires and Billionaires will work because when the middle class buys goods and services, everyone wins; especially the business owners selling Goods and services and their shareholders.
2
I didn't read anything new here, just the same weary bromides we've heard ad nauseam from the right. In fact, I believe that many of these proposals, put forth by Republican presidential candidates in recent campaigns have been debunked by economists and government budget experts as increasing deficits, not lowering them.
One of the major themes in the State of the Union was the inequality of the corporate and individual tax rates. The President maintained--and I agree with him on this---that the financial deck is usually stacked against the middle and lower classes.
My biggest concern, however is the author's ideas on health insurance. His disingenuous suggestion : "Workers would have the choice of switching to options available under current law for employer-provided health insurance and a health savings account, or a tax deduction for their own health insurance and health savings account as incomes rise" makes me scream.
This is nothing more than a return to the rapacious market that led to the ACA in the first place! What financially strapped middle class worker has the means to set up health savings accounts, given the cost of health today? And Medicare "vouchers"? There's a long history of what happens when private companies are handed the freedom to exploit vulnerable consumers. You might as well throw seniors in a shark pool.
Hubbard's ideas are nothing more than a plan to make the rich even richer from redistribution of tax burdens downward.
One of the major themes in the State of the Union was the inequality of the corporate and individual tax rates. The President maintained--and I agree with him on this---that the financial deck is usually stacked against the middle and lower classes.
My biggest concern, however is the author's ideas on health insurance. His disingenuous suggestion : "Workers would have the choice of switching to options available under current law for employer-provided health insurance and a health savings account, or a tax deduction for their own health insurance and health savings account as incomes rise" makes me scream.
This is nothing more than a return to the rapacious market that led to the ACA in the first place! What financially strapped middle class worker has the means to set up health savings accounts, given the cost of health today? And Medicare "vouchers"? There's a long history of what happens when private companies are handed the freedom to exploit vulnerable consumers. You might as well throw seniors in a shark pool.
Hubbard's ideas are nothing more than a plan to make the rich even richer from redistribution of tax burdens downward.
4
"With no chance of engaging the Republicans". End of story. That's the article. The rest can be filler on any topic.
Mr. Hubbard
You and Paul Ryan can buy your Medicare vouchers if you want, but don't force me to do it. Sounding a little too familiar of Ryan's plan which fell flat with voters. In other words, from the voices of the Medicare recipients "Don't take our Medicare away from us." Give it up.
You and Paul Ryan can buy your Medicare vouchers if you want, but don't force me to do it. Sounding a little too familiar of Ryan's plan which fell flat with voters. In other words, from the voices of the Medicare recipients "Don't take our Medicare away from us." Give it up.
2
Do we live in the same country?
Also, one of the problems with having full-time employment as the centerpiece of your proposals is that there aren't enough good jobs in the US. And when we have recessions or depressions people lose their jobs, businesses contract, and safety nets are needed. One way we avoid recessions is sound fiscal policy and avoiding economic extremes…all of the things that used to be but were dismantled by all parties in DC over the past 30 years. So what do you do when you don't have any job, let alone a decent one, and can't get one because the Masters of the Universe crashed the economy?
The fact of the matter is, most capital is in the hands of very few people, and the rest of us middle class (and below) Americans have to live and work in a land of stunted opportunity as a result, while competing with very wealthy people. This isn't working out for a majority of us. The solution is a clawback (or redistribution if you will) and then returning to formerly sound laws and tax practices like those in place after WW2.
These are political choices, not inevitabilities and not the result of globalization. Both parties and all politicians have to answer for returning to the Gilded Age in the years since Reagan.
And we have to be quick about it too, as our planet needs some attention and people need economic resilience and a sense of teamwork to survive the effects of global warming and climate change.
Again, do we live in the same country?
Also, one of the problems with having full-time employment as the centerpiece of your proposals is that there aren't enough good jobs in the US. And when we have recessions or depressions people lose their jobs, businesses contract, and safety nets are needed. One way we avoid recessions is sound fiscal policy and avoiding economic extremes…all of the things that used to be but were dismantled by all parties in DC over the past 30 years. So what do you do when you don't have any job, let alone a decent one, and can't get one because the Masters of the Universe crashed the economy?
The fact of the matter is, most capital is in the hands of very few people, and the rest of us middle class (and below) Americans have to live and work in a land of stunted opportunity as a result, while competing with very wealthy people. This isn't working out for a majority of us. The solution is a clawback (or redistribution if you will) and then returning to formerly sound laws and tax practices like those in place after WW2.
These are political choices, not inevitabilities and not the result of globalization. Both parties and all politicians have to answer for returning to the Gilded Age in the years since Reagan.
And we have to be quick about it too, as our planet needs some attention and people need economic resilience and a sense of teamwork to survive the effects of global warming and climate change.
Again, do we live in the same country?
2
I have two questions for Mr. Hubbard. The first is - why in the name of God would anyone listen to G.W. Bush's principal economic adviser? Anyone who helped W. run the economy off a cliff by 2008 has no business being listened too. Perhaps when Mr. Hubbard apologizes for the Bush administrators' incompetence as economic managers I will actually pay some attention to what he has to say. Certainly not before.
The second is - why are conservatives so comfortable with redistribution of wealth when it's redistribution up the economic food chain and so uncomfortable with it when it's in the opposite direction? Over the past forty plus years the tax code has consistently been modified to favor income from capital over income from labor, and it is one of the principal reasons why wealth has been concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer. And yet Mr. Hubbard insists that we do more of the same. What folly - to expect different results when you do the same thing repeatedly. And what hypocrisy to pretend that it is something else.
The second is - why are conservatives so comfortable with redistribution of wealth when it's redistribution up the economic food chain and so uncomfortable with it when it's in the opposite direction? Over the past forty plus years the tax code has consistently been modified to favor income from capital over income from labor, and it is one of the principal reasons why wealth has been concentrating more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer. And yet Mr. Hubbard insists that we do more of the same. What folly - to expect different results when you do the same thing repeatedly. And what hypocrisy to pretend that it is something else.
5
Glenn Hubbard is also living in the past. You should listen more Robert Reich from Berkeley.
Just remember, The people like Hubbard told you, when the middle class and working class asked this very question. What happened between 1970 and 2000 period , so The American jobs and payments degraded. They said, Outsourcing and automation and Computer technology effects.
What is Changed?
Next two decades we are expecting unpredictable level of Computer advances such as A.I or A.I backed robotics.
Hubbard is not mentioning how A.I. is going to took over almost all jobs and no human help necessary. Instead he stuck old Tax, free market , entitlement programs etc. type 20th century issues.
Please Mr. Hubbard tell the truth what is going to happen in couple of decades is not seen before or even imagined.
A.I is coming , we cannot do anything about it. Judgment day is inevitable.
Just remember, The people like Hubbard told you, when the middle class and working class asked this very question. What happened between 1970 and 2000 period , so The American jobs and payments degraded. They said, Outsourcing and automation and Computer technology effects.
What is Changed?
Next two decades we are expecting unpredictable level of Computer advances such as A.I or A.I backed robotics.
Hubbard is not mentioning how A.I. is going to took over almost all jobs and no human help necessary. Instead he stuck old Tax, free market , entitlement programs etc. type 20th century issues.
Please Mr. Hubbard tell the truth what is going to happen in couple of decades is not seen before or even imagined.
A.I is coming , we cannot do anything about it. Judgment day is inevitable.
1
"Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School, was a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush"
So he was part of the team that tanked the economy before President Obama got elected and he is now part of the establishment that trains the future 1%. Seems like he has a bit of a credibility gap in trying to suggest how to help the middle class...
So he was part of the team that tanked the economy before President Obama got elected and he is now part of the establishment that trains the future 1%. Seems like he has a bit of a credibility gap in trying to suggest how to help the middle class...
4
These are all very good points and worthy of discussion. However in this age of blame and shame a former member from the Bush (Satan's child according to the normal NY Times consigliere) White House will be given no thought because all republicans want to do is abuse the poor and rip off the country. The previous replies illustrate why we cannot have a discussion and move forward on meaningful tax reform. The "Ruling" Class forbids it, and it's minions will do their bidding.
1
The muddled thinking here is demonstrated where Hubbard, in a single paragraph, says the earned-income tax credit should be both expanded and phased out.
You misunderstood. The author's meaning is not that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)will be phased out gradually OVER TIME, but that they be phased out gradually AS INDIVIDUAL INCOME INCREASES to avoid a high marginal tax rate or cliff that discourages EITC recipients from seeking work.
there is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin
1. mr. hubbard advocates tax reform, which would involve lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions and credits and then goes on to recommend a whole bunch of deductions and credits. congress will never produce real tax reform. there are too many lobbyists whose main job is keeping those deductions and credits in the law
2. he wants to get rid of the subsidies and replace them with tax credits, but then recommends changing medicare to-obamacare!!!!
3. means testing social security and medicare will mean the end of those programs. they will be perceived as welfare and we all know what happens to welfare in this political system. besides both medicare and social security are already means tested to some extent-if your other income is high enough you have to pay income taxes on 85% or your social security and your medicare part B premiums go up if your income is above a certain level
4. block granting Medicaid would be a disaster. states will simply use the bloc grant to balance their budgets and reduce the Medicaid spending to a pittance.
1. mr. hubbard advocates tax reform, which would involve lowering tax rates and eliminating deductions and credits and then goes on to recommend a whole bunch of deductions and credits. congress will never produce real tax reform. there are too many lobbyists whose main job is keeping those deductions and credits in the law
2. he wants to get rid of the subsidies and replace them with tax credits, but then recommends changing medicare to-obamacare!!!!
3. means testing social security and medicare will mean the end of those programs. they will be perceived as welfare and we all know what happens to welfare in this political system. besides both medicare and social security are already means tested to some extent-if your other income is high enough you have to pay income taxes on 85% or your social security and your medicare part B premiums go up if your income is above a certain level
4. block granting Medicaid would be a disaster. states will simply use the bloc grant to balance their budgets and reduce the Medicaid spending to a pittance.
36
Leaving this poorly conceived grab-bag of neoconservative ideology right on Krugman's doorstep is a very bold move. Kudos. I especially like the part about "the need for fiscal consolidation in entitlement spending" coming right on the heels of "the fourth step is to strengthen retirement security". I understand that shilling for the plutocracy inevitably calls for marketing a few non-sequiturs, but the mind boggles......really.
1
Chairman of the economic advisors to George W. Bush, oh yea that really went well, lets do it again!
How to make a small fortune, start with a large one.
Seriously this is a man who should be out of work.
How to make a small fortune, start with a large one.
Seriously this is a man who should be out of work.
4
Redistribution? We already have that. The .01% already own half of everything.
That is the direct result of tax policy that entitles the "investor class."
Work? May I remind you of the Times Mag's interview with Bain partner, Edward Conard, that if you are not part of the investor class, you are just an "art history major." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-m...
So much for the value of work. https://reframes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/artists-create-bankers-pontifi...
That is the direct result of tax policy that entitles the "investor class."
Work? May I remind you of the Times Mag's interview with Bain partner, Edward Conard, that if you are not part of the investor class, you are just an "art history major." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-m...
So much for the value of work. https://reframes.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/artists-create-bankers-pontifi...
2
Hubbard's key role in the financial frauds that brought down the economy for all except the perpetrators was highlighted in the documentary "Inside Job," by Charles Ferguson. NYT should have alerted its readers to the dubiousness of Hubbard's credibility.
4
Remember two things; the marginal propensity to consume and the multiplier effect fro Econ 101. The economy suffers from inadequate demand, businesses will not invest without more demand and thus will not create jobs. will not increase without decreased supply of labor (or union pressures to increase them). The current system (rigged by the wealthy) favors capital over labor and investors over workers; until that is changed by government action ( or pitchforks and torches {or the guillotine}) the economic situation will continue to worse. In addition to the modest proposals of the President, we need to eliminate carried interest, strengthen unions and fix the political system (Citizens United). why should we be the only developed country without universal healthcare, paid sick leave and childcare?
3
Perhaps enough GOPs with enough Democrats to coalesce may do rational reforms.
But politicos are intent in protecting re-elections/funds that they can't do needed legislation without enough patron consent/encouragement.
On the right, peed-off talk radio's rhetoric, for instance, will tragically make sure it ain't gonnabe.
On the left, anger from interests (such as environmentalists, women, and unions) tragically won't let anything substantively bi-partisan happen.
In other words, our nation is too inflexible, dis-united and driven by ugly partisan hostilities that we're in distress.
Everybody realizes that gridlock/dysfunction/animus prevails.
But politicos are intent in protecting re-elections/funds that they can't do needed legislation without enough patron consent/encouragement.
On the right, peed-off talk radio's rhetoric, for instance, will tragically make sure it ain't gonnabe.
On the left, anger from interests (such as environmentalists, women, and unions) tragically won't let anything substantively bi-partisan happen.
In other words, our nation is too inflexible, dis-united and driven by ugly partisan hostilities that we're in distress.
Everybody realizes that gridlock/dysfunction/animus prevails.
I never cease to be amazed at what lengths the 1% and their water carriers will go to via rhetoric and sophism to obfuscate the glaring reality that the wealthy, for far, far too long have not paid their fair share in taxes.
I will certainly be adding Mr. Hubbard's contribution to that tawdry objective to my circular file.
I will certainly be adding Mr. Hubbard's contribution to that tawdry objective to my circular file.
1
For more on Glenn Hubbard's policies and personal character, see 2010's Best Documentary, Inside Job. Decide for yourself whether you would this man's opinions are worth of your time or anyone else's.
1
To a hammer everything looks like a nail, and to an economist, everything looks like a widget. Here's a short history lesson: we've had enormous growth in work and wealth, and it resulted in the widest income inequality in a century. The expanding economy and productivity gains at all wage levels benefited only the top few. Markets are efficient but not equitable, and only non-economic forces can promote human values like fairness, decency, and justice for all. The head of Columbia School of Economics should have the fairness, decency and the sense of justice to know that.
1
In the State of the Union, the President promoted investing in infrastructure, including the internet. These are key to economic growth. He wants more people to have access to education, especially oriented toward present day job skills. And he proposes an investment in quality day care. All these things create more jobs and make a better climate for business and industry. And he'd like to see a minimum wage that a person could actually live on and equal pay for women. That way the benefits of the growth get spread around. Mr Hubbard's diatribe about taxes does not seem to have much to do with any of those goals.
Yes, we can't have "growth, work and opportunity" according to the commenters here. Much better to keep paying people not to work, keeping them poor for generations.
1
When will we stop fiddling around and face the reality that the 1% , their lackeys and 1% wannabes have been waging open economic war on the rest of us for years. And they're winning.
2
When I read something like this I always wonder; does this man think we are really this stupid or is he actually so deluded he believes it.
I'm never quite sure if Mr. Hubbard actually believes what he's saying or not.
The cynic in me thinks he's running a con.
I'm never quite sure if Mr. Hubbard actually believes what he's saying or not.
The cynic in me thinks he's running a con.
2
So this guy's ideas are to simplify the tax code by getting rid of the loopholes in the tax system and then to add to more loopholes for the poor people who behave how he wants them to.
That there requires a special kind of "thinking".
That there requires a special kind of "thinking".
Dean Hubbard was interviewed and featured in the film documentary "Inside Job." Recommended to those of you interested in a critical assessment of the global financial meltdown and the key players therein.
1
Liberals don't get it. The wealthy are just better people in every way.
They are smarter, more moral, more honest, more everything that is good in America. They never lie, cheat, fool around with those not their spouse or do anything wrong.
They deserve it.
The rest of those takers should be happy to support them. They should be glad to be trickled down upon.
Royalty must be respected. America became the greatest country the world has ever seen without any minimum wage.
Liberals are out to destroy all of that
They, and all white clergy, should be celebrated, not criticized.
They are smarter, more moral, more honest, more everything that is good in America. They never lie, cheat, fool around with those not their spouse or do anything wrong.
They deserve it.
The rest of those takers should be happy to support them. They should be glad to be trickled down upon.
Royalty must be respected. America became the greatest country the world has ever seen without any minimum wage.
Liberals are out to destroy all of that
They, and all white clergy, should be celebrated, not criticized.
Smirk sarcasm.
Time for businesses to step up to the plate. Stock holders have been rewarded and now it is time to reward the workers. With businesses holding perhaps $2,000,000,000,000 in reserves they can well afford a reasonable wage increase for their workers with a portion of those reserves… Good for the workers and and a boost to the economy..
1
This is your bad economic idea. You say "redistribution" and what you really menan is removing any barriers or laws that allow certain people to make billions of dolllars, invest it in the Caymen Islands, find a very, very good accountant who is willing to break the law, and a very good attorney to keep him out of jail. That's what "growth and opportunity" now mean. Do you actually think the American public is still so naive as to think that your brand of "growth and opportunity" would help the middle class? The last middle class boom was after WWII when the GI bill, college loans and unions, all contributed to helping returning veterans get a foothold in the middle class. My father, son of a grocer, went from being a stock boy to a mechanical engineer and bought a house in the suburbs. His opinion of the Republicans? I couldn't say it in this column. And my father was a very observant man.
2
"As a web developer benefiting from an 8 percent pay raise, Brad McLaughlin is looking good economically. He and his girlfriend are spending more money on natural groceries, ski weekends in Colorado’s mountains and vacations to England and Austin, Tex. "
And yet he and his ilk whine. Try living in a roach infested hovel and dumpster diving to feed your kids. This country needs to re-consider what it is to be well-off.
And yet he and his ilk whine. Try living in a roach infested hovel and dumpster diving to feed your kids. This country needs to re-consider what it is to be well-off.
1
If Glenn Hubbard had any shame, he would refrain from making public statements about anyone's economic ideas. Let's remember that this man swore up and down that Bush's tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the middle class, would induce rapid economic growth, and would reduce the federal budget deficit.
We all remember how that turned out.
We all remember how that turned out.
6
Why did Obama approve 98% of the Bush tax cuts?
1
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" the Wizard of Oz
An economic advisor to George W. Bush, presider over the worst recession since the great depression, thinks he has a solution to our fiscal health? This is a read between the lines article, and its true aim is political. The idea is to smooth the way for another Bush(Jeb) to get some favorable preambles before he hits the campaign trail. This is a Heritage Foundation style strategy of planting seriously flawed but appealing messages in newspapers from which it can spread to other media, to gain favor no matter how false or twisted its assumptions are. Keep tuned. You can bet this will be on Fox News in short order. Caveat emptor.
An economic advisor to George W. Bush, presider over the worst recession since the great depression, thinks he has a solution to our fiscal health? This is a read between the lines article, and its true aim is political. The idea is to smooth the way for another Bush(Jeb) to get some favorable preambles before he hits the campaign trail. This is a Heritage Foundation style strategy of planting seriously flawed but appealing messages in newspapers from which it can spread to other media, to gain favor no matter how false or twisted its assumptions are. Keep tuned. You can bet this will be on Fox News in short order. Caveat emptor.
2
Yet more "Earned Income Credit." Let me tell you a personal story. I used to own rental property. Not one, but several families figured out that they could live on welfare and food stamps, hit the Baptist food pantry on Monday, the Methodist clothing pantry on Tuesday, etc., etc. Work just enough to have a little earned income - a few hundred dollars a year is sufficient - and every spring, Uncle Sam sends you an "income tax refund" (though you didn't pay any) of $7,000-$8,000. More than enough for rent, beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets and an occasional trip to the casino. What a life!
2
Why should people take anything Mr. Hubbard says seriously ? His economic policy ideology has driven the world's economy to the brink of complete collapse under GW Bush. His cronies in the financial sector have managed to siphon off an ever larger share of the world's wealth after the crisis which they engineered. Taking advice from Mr. Hubbard about government fiscal policy is as bad as taking advice from Dick Cheney about American foreign policy. Please just let these people fade into history and the infamy they truly deserve.
Everyone should see Mr. Hubbard's infamous role in Frontline's great documentary "Inside Job" !!
Everyone should see Mr. Hubbard's infamous role in Frontline's great documentary "Inside Job" !!
3
<>
The writer does not understand basic principles of economy: redistribution of income leads to more money in the hands of the masses (99% of the population) and that in turn creates more demands which in turn creates more jobs which in turn creates more wealth to the nation.
As opposed to making the 1%ers richer BUT they can consume only so much (they are only human after all) and investing all their wealth does not help since producers will only produce if their is demand for their products.
The writer does not understand basic principles of economy: redistribution of income leads to more money in the hands of the masses (99% of the population) and that in turn creates more demands which in turn creates more jobs which in turn creates more wealth to the nation.
As opposed to making the 1%ers richer BUT they can consume only so much (they are only human after all) and investing all their wealth does not help since producers will only produce if their is demand for their products.
Once again, it is really easy to see the underlying concept from a Republican. "I've got mine, too bad about you." The whole column makes sense from this perspective.
3
This isn't even growth-oriented. People at the bottom of the economic ladder spend more than those at the top. Injecting money into the pockets of the bottom 50% leads to clear increases in the growth rate of the economy. That's why raising the minimum wage and creating progressive tax structures drive growth. By contrast, if you put more money into the hands of the 1%, they sit on it, and live off of capital gains. That money isn't spent and doesn't become part of GDP. So this analysis is pretty far removed from reality.
What a bunch of absolute hogwash! We have been in decades of reduced marginal tax rates that were supposed to "spur growth" and the only growth income have been for the investor class and the stock market. Capital gains? Does not apply to income deferred retirement plans where most people actually have money invested.
And, what, you think health insurers compete? Oh please, get real. Most markets are dominated by a single insurer. Large hospital domination of markets makes "competition" among providers a joke too. The amount that individuals pay as a percent of disposable income has skyrocketed as employers have increased deductibles, coinsurance and out of pocket maximums.
No, we don't need any more of this kind of economics. Has not worked.
And, what, you think health insurers compete? Oh please, get real. Most markets are dominated by a single insurer. Large hospital domination of markets makes "competition" among providers a joke too. The amount that individuals pay as a percent of disposable income has skyrocketed as employers have increased deductibles, coinsurance and out of pocket maximums.
No, we don't need any more of this kind of economics. Has not worked.
1
Same old failed Supply Side nonsense. The only redistribution going on in America is from all of us to the uber wealthy. And of course any attempt to rectify this will be stone walled by the minions of the same uber wealthy. The Republican Party that is.
2
Why is the increase in wealth to the top 1% not redistribution but rebalancing taxes to improve the equity in the tax system is?
Why is the New York Times publishing this right wing ideological fodder. All these people want is tax breaks for the rich. That is all they want.
But these right wing extremists have plenty of media outlets. Why does the Times foolishly attempt to be "fair and balanced" when these barbarians already have Fox News.?
But these right wing extremists have plenty of media outlets. Why does the Times foolishly attempt to be "fair and balanced" when these barbarians already have Fox News.?
1
We could expect nothing else from a Business School Dean (on a monstrous salary, I'd imagine) and an economic advisor to GWB. We've been hearing all this for decades: tax "reform" (= more tax breaks for corporations and the rich to "create" the illusory jobs that never materialize); tax credits to buy health insurance (= vouchers that leave most people under- or uninsured); tax credits for education (= obliviousness to the ridiculously high cost of education in the USA, the annual fees for which which often exceeds the entire annual income of an average household, let alone a poor one); turning Medicare into a voucher program (= obliviousness to the scandalous racket that privatized healthcare and healthcare insurance is in this country).
We've heard it all before. Where it's been tried, even in part, it's failed dismally (see Kansas).
Look to Scandinavia or Canada, where income redistribution bolsters a vibrant and vigorous middle class and everyone does well.
But, no, that's "socialism." Aaaaaahhh! Socialism!
Better to fester in quasi-feudal economic inequality than try a formula that has worked so very well in other countries.
America! No. 1!
We've heard it all before. Where it's been tried, even in part, it's failed dismally (see Kansas).
Look to Scandinavia or Canada, where income redistribution bolsters a vibrant and vigorous middle class and everyone does well.
But, no, that's "socialism." Aaaaaahhh! Socialism!
Better to fester in quasi-feudal economic inequality than try a formula that has worked so very well in other countries.
America! No. 1!
3
As someone firmly established in the disappearing middle class I can tell you that from a practical standpoint, tax credits for us and for the poor are near meaningless. What is meaningful is living wages, ability to go to school without taking out a mortgage, and being secure in the knowledge that when we are old and gray, our "Entitlement" of medicare and Social security which we all paid into all of our lives will be there for us so we wont starve. Wall Street has shown time and again it's greed is above all else. To Privatize Social Security would be to end it, not to mention the idea that a senior citizen could purchase health insurance on the open market at anything that resembles an affordable price is laughable. Thank you, but no thank you to more rhetoric on Supply side economics.
2
As numerous studies show, without a more equitable distribution of wealth, there is no growth or work.
Or let them eat cake.
Or let them eat cake.
1
I do wish President Obama had been more forthright about his plan for redistribution of the wealth by noting, equally frankly, that the wealth has already been redistributed to the wealthy. Mr. Hubbard's double-speak ignores the reality on the ground. People can't afford the basics even though they are working more productively and efficiently than they ever have. Their profiteering bosses and those who are in a position to play the markets are systematically siphoning money out of the system and either sitting on it or buying outrageously priced luxury items when they should be reinvesting it in the American people, their health and welfare, and in infrastructure, the arts and research.
These are ideological talking points masquerading as thoughtful reforms. Please, NY Times editors, do a national search for one conservative who understands that putting well-earned money back into the hands of the people who spend it will boost the economy, raise all boats and allow the government to spend it on the things we really need.
These are ideological talking points masquerading as thoughtful reforms. Please, NY Times editors, do a national search for one conservative who understands that putting well-earned money back into the hands of the people who spend it will boost the economy, raise all boats and allow the government to spend it on the things we really need.
29
It seems Mr. Hubbard has the opinion people who are on the bottom of the income ladder only need help to handle their money, that's the major problem. The President was correct when he challenged the congress to live on $15,000 a year, how many takers so far? I will say it again, raise the minimum wage then tie it to inflation, now ask the challenge takers in congress what's fare. Nobody to ask, what a surprise!
1
Mr. Hubbard, as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, what role did you play in letting the president and his team know they could invade Iraq and Afghanistan and not pay for it? Unless, of course, you told them that the huge budget surplus left at the end of Clinton presidency could be wantonly raided to cover the costs of a war that spiraled almost out of control? What counsel did you provide to the president during the run-up to the housing crisis and the great recession? I think your job as Columbia's Business School dean is pretty benign, so long as you stay away from advising real-world students seeking real-world solutions to the problems that you and others of your ilk lumbered us with and for which you continue to deny any responsibility.
4
Corporations won't be happy until:
- the government pays THEM for the privilege of remaining in the US.
- employees pay corporations for the privilege of working there.
In other words, corporations will NEVER be happy, and will have crooks like Mr. Hubbard spew offensive articles like this.
- the government pays THEM for the privilege of remaining in the US.
- employees pay corporations for the privilege of working there.
In other words, corporations will NEVER be happy, and will have crooks like Mr. Hubbard spew offensive articles like this.
1
Short of revolution, nobody has any idea how to deal with the gross and growing inequity of income and assets between the 1% and the 99%. The Left wants a boost in the minimum wage, increased taxes on the rich, low-cost higher education and free WiFi for all.. The Right wants to deal with distractions like terrorism and other threats to the American way of life like restrictions on unbridled capitalism and questioning the science of global warming.
All the old models of revolution have been discredited and, with any luck, a new model waits in the wings. The current state of affairs in not sustainable; change is on the way. Some day folks will ask the question: "How was it possible that 1% of the population owned 50% of the country's wealth?"
All the old models of revolution have been discredited and, with any luck, a new model waits in the wings. The current state of affairs in not sustainable; change is on the way. Some day folks will ask the question: "How was it possible that 1% of the population owned 50% of the country's wealth?"
4
Mr. Hubbard -- you chaired the CEA for a president who oversaw a doubling of every measure of unemployment, U3, U4, U6, discouraged workers, you name it, over two terms. We have a current president, your boss's successor, who, with redistributive policies such as restoring the 39.6 percent tax rate on high marginal income, abolishing the Medicare tax cap, modestly regulating banks, and maintaining the lowest middle class income taxes of modern times, has overseen a one-third drop in all measures of unemployment and is on target for a halving over two terms.
Seems to me like redistribution enables Middle America to participate in the economy, and that's the rising tide that lifts all boats.
Seems to me like redistribution enables Middle America to participate in the economy, and that's the rising tide that lifts all boats.
2
What caused the US higher paying STEM jobs to relocate to foreign nations?
The Free Trade Agreements, the MFN and the PNTR trade statuses that were unilaterally granted by the last three US presidents economically caused US jobs to relocate to third world nations whenever possible, when US citizens refuse to work for the third world pay scales!
Which party is in opposition to relocating US jobs to third world nations?
Not the Democrats!
Not the Republicans!
Are blue collar US workers just now realizing that the Democrats are the first to create "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS" that economically require that US jobs relocate to third world nations on a wholesale basis?
These "FREE TRADE" laws economically required lowering of the middle class pay scales for US workers in order to compete with third world nation pay and benefit scales, if US workers want those jobs to be located in the USA.
The Free Trade Agreements, the MFN and the PNTR trade statuses that were unilaterally granted by the last three US presidents economically caused US jobs to relocate to third world nations whenever possible, when US citizens refuse to work for the third world pay scales!
Which party is in opposition to relocating US jobs to third world nations?
Not the Democrats!
Not the Republicans!
Are blue collar US workers just now realizing that the Democrats are the first to create "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS" that economically require that US jobs relocate to third world nations on a wholesale basis?
These "FREE TRADE" laws economically required lowering of the middle class pay scales for US workers in order to compete with third world nation pay and benefit scales, if US workers want those jobs to be located in the USA.
1
So, let's put this in perspective: Hubbard is the one who presided over the Council of Economic Advisers that led us into the deepest recession in a generation. And we're supposed to respect his ideas? Me thinks not.
1
Mr Hubbard doesn't seem to be concerned about the redistribution of wealth that rolled up tho the top 2%. If they are the job creators then where are the good paying jobs? They already have most of the wealth.
1
Brooklyngirlatheart,
The "good paying jobs" are all being created and relocated to third world nations as economically required by the "Free Trade Agreements" that the US Government creates in the last 20 years, Starting with President Clinton's NAFTA!
Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama each unilaterally created all of these “FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS” by their self without any congressional review or approval in accordance with the "Fast Track Trade Agreement" laws and regulations that were modified, up-dated, and then signed into law by President Clinton.
Those higher paying US skilled manufacturing jobs are now gone forever until US workers decide to work for the same wages that third world nation workers are paid for those jobs.
As US jobs relocate to foreign nations, there is now a growing surplus of available labor created in the USA with more and more US citizens applying for each available job, so the pay scales go down and the unemployment goes up.
Why then did our last three elected presidents create all of these "free trade legislation" treaties that economically required US businesses to relocate as many US jobs as possible to foreign nations?
How do you think these free trade agreements were created?
The "good paying jobs" are all being created and relocated to third world nations as economically required by the "Free Trade Agreements" that the US Government creates in the last 20 years, Starting with President Clinton's NAFTA!
Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama each unilaterally created all of these “FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS” by their self without any congressional review or approval in accordance with the "Fast Track Trade Agreement" laws and regulations that were modified, up-dated, and then signed into law by President Clinton.
Those higher paying US skilled manufacturing jobs are now gone forever until US workers decide to work for the same wages that third world nation workers are paid for those jobs.
As US jobs relocate to foreign nations, there is now a growing surplus of available labor created in the USA with more and more US citizens applying for each available job, so the pay scales go down and the unemployment goes up.
Why then did our last three elected presidents create all of these "free trade legislation" treaties that economically required US businesses to relocate as many US jobs as possible to foreign nations?
How do you think these free trade agreements were created?
1
Do you think that maybe the foreign product manufacturers that export consumer products to the USA might have paid professional US lobbyists to spend hundreds of thousands of US dollars on wine, food, women, song, pre-paid vacations in Spain, cash, pre-paid sexual services, corporate jobs for the (otherwise unemployable) children/wives/girlfriends of enough of the US senators and US congressmen (and their congressional aides who actually control the members of congress) plus campaign contributions to influence/entice (bribe) enough of our Republican and Democratic US presidents, congressmen, and senators for the past 20 years to create all of that "Free Trade Agreement" legislation that allowed, caused, and economically required our businesses to take advantage of the lower labor costs, lower electrical energy costs, lower business taxes, lower payroll taxes to pay for health care costs, lower unemployment insurance costs, lower environmental manufacturing costs and other anti-business costs that are not required in various foreign countries with fewer anti-business laws than are/were applicable to businesses in the USA?
Why else do you think that US government, US presidents, US congressmen, US senators, and their bureaucratic administrators created any these FREE TRADE laws that benefit only a few people represented by their campaign contributors and lobbyists?
Why else do you think that US government, US presidents, US congressmen, US senators, and their bureaucratic administrators created any these FREE TRADE laws that benefit only a few people represented by their campaign contributors and lobbyists?
1
will wonders never cease! To be English about it, I am gobsmacked that this newspaper just printed this editorial, rather than the usual assault on wealthy earners that comprise the usual fodder for NYT editorialists. I'm sorry Mr. Hubbard you won't get any takers on these comment boards for what you prescribe here. If you want support from your average liberal NYT reader you should try something more in the "Wall Street bank executives and hedge fund managers are put in stocks at high noon in Manhattan" line, with the obligatory paragraph outlining how Bush and Cheney are war criminals for good measure. Much of what you say makes sense but selling it to your average redistributionist liberal ain't gonna happen. Watching these commenters foam at the mouth in written form HAS been very amusing this morning though.
3
This column misses the point and knows nothing of the Middle Class. What ails us and our economy, what lags behind is the uptick for the working people. If business and, worse, business academics who teach this myopic view don't see growth and innovation coming from a Middle Class that is not just hanging on by their fingertips (does he know the cost of child care???), they have missed the iceberg that their workforce feels the shadow of every day; does he not know how stress and financial strain affects work, morale, innovation, creativity, pride in one's work. Biden was right; we are all in chains here on Main Street. Focus on the bottom line only, and wonder what talent you might have missed.
1
All nations should return to basic economic principles and realize/understand that privately held taxable national wealth is only made, created, and/or acquired when the members of a family or the citizen businessmen of a nation, state, city, island, tribe, school district, hospital district, etc., perform one or more of the following tasks:
1. Plant, grow, and/or harvest something of commercial value from the earth;
2. Extract something of commercial value from the earth;
3. Manufacture something of commercial value that is consumable;
4. Construct a building that is permanently useful for rental income;
5. Tourism income from foreign tourists;
6. Provide professional State licensed services such as doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and certified public accountants, etc.;
7. Provide other services such as plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, HVAC mechanics, barbers, real estate agents, financial advisers and etc.;
8. Collect payment for patent and copyright use;
9. Buy things from foreigners in foreign nations, transport them to another foreign nation, and then sell those things to peopl3e in that other foreign nation at a profit;
And then if they trade, sell, lease, or rent these items and/or services to parties outside of their family (or outside of their nation), in return for a net transfer of wealth from other parties outside of their family into their own family, they are enriched and accumulates wealth.
1. Plant, grow, and/or harvest something of commercial value from the earth;
2. Extract something of commercial value from the earth;
3. Manufacture something of commercial value that is consumable;
4. Construct a building that is permanently useful for rental income;
5. Tourism income from foreign tourists;
6. Provide professional State licensed services such as doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and certified public accountants, etc.;
7. Provide other services such as plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, HVAC mechanics, barbers, real estate agents, financial advisers and etc.;
8. Collect payment for patent and copyright use;
9. Buy things from foreigners in foreign nations, transport them to another foreign nation, and then sell those things to peopl3e in that other foreign nation at a profit;
And then if they trade, sell, lease, or rent these items and/or services to parties outside of their family (or outside of their nation), in return for a net transfer of wealth from other parties outside of their family into their own family, they are enriched and accumulates wealth.
1
I have a question. How many times do your ideas have to be tried and fail before the New York Times will stop letting you pose as an expert columnist? Well, at least Mr. Krugman is on the job of offering a rebuttal:
"The real point, of course, is that Hubbard is defending his pride and joy, the 2003 cuts in tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, which were supposedly designed to spur business investment. They didn’t — we have what amounts to a controlled experiment, because the dividend tax cut had no effect on closely held corporations, which can therefore be used as a control group. And what the comparison shows is that the tax cut didn’t boost investment or employment at all — all it did was boost payouts to shareholders."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-inc...
"The real point, of course, is that Hubbard is defending his pride and joy, the 2003 cuts in tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, which were supposedly designed to spur business investment. They didn’t — we have what amounts to a controlled experiment, because the dividend tax cut had no effect on closely held corporations, which can therefore be used as a control group. And what the comparison shows is that the tax cut didn’t boost investment or employment at all — all it did was boost payouts to shareholders."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com//2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-inc...
1
Hubbard repeats the long-discredited talking points used by Right-Wing Republican ideologues to push America into the Great Recession. We presently have unjustifiable, artificial wealth redistribution --from working-class Americans to wealthy corporate oligarchs and investor class elites.
As Iraq War costs soared to $2Trillion, Hubbard and his 1-percenter pals gave themselves an massive undeserved tax cut; corporations like GE paid zero income taxes; jobs evaporated; the deficit soared... and the rest of us are forced to pay the tab.
Even when oil companies earned record profits from the war's resulting oil shortage, Republicans blocked a proposed one-time windfall profit tax to help pay for the war... and the rest of us are forced to pay the tab. President Obama's proposal are small but economically sound steps to correct this kind of unfair wealth redistribution.
As Iraq War costs soared to $2Trillion, Hubbard and his 1-percenter pals gave themselves an massive undeserved tax cut; corporations like GE paid zero income taxes; jobs evaporated; the deficit soared... and the rest of us are forced to pay the tab.
Even when oil companies earned record profits from the war's resulting oil shortage, Republicans blocked a proposed one-time windfall profit tax to help pay for the war... and the rest of us are forced to pay the tab. President Obama's proposal are small but economically sound steps to correct this kind of unfair wealth redistribution.
2
Glenn Hubbard was interviewed by Charles Ferguson in his documentary film, "Inside Job." He angrily terminated the interview when Ferguson asked how much money he personally received from financial institutions. It turned out that
Countrywide Finance was paying Hubbard $1,200 per hour to help cover up Countrywide's fraudulent activities.
Countrywide Finance was paying Hubbard $1,200 per hour to help cover up Countrywide's fraudulent activities.
4
GLENN HUBBARD, you stated,
"The first is to move to a simple business tax system, with a lower marginal tax rate and no special industry preferences."
I am a business owner (sole proprietor) and this would mean that I would then be double taxes on the wealth that I create!
I suggest that we do not replace the existing tax system with anything that is subject to easy revision such as a flat (income) tax.
This will only be modified by congress until we get back to what we have now.
Why not have a national sales (Consumption or Value Added) tax, and fire most of the IRS employees. We should call this a "Value Added Tax" or a "Consumption Tax" because this will be easier to sell to the US public.
The existing tax code is voluminous, contradictory, purposely subjectively written, not understandable, and so much of it is widely subject to interpretation.
A national sales tax might be more equitable.
This could also eliminate most of the IRS employees.
Make uncooked food, used clothing, rent up to a minimum monthly amount, used vehicles, and any similar items tax exempt to help the poor.
Businesses would also pay these taxes on new plant constructions, new plant expansions, plant maintenance supplies, replacement parts, consumable office supplies, and other similar expense items that are used in the manufacture of products (and not re-sold).
"The first is to move to a simple business tax system, with a lower marginal tax rate and no special industry preferences."
I am a business owner (sole proprietor) and this would mean that I would then be double taxes on the wealth that I create!
I suggest that we do not replace the existing tax system with anything that is subject to easy revision such as a flat (income) tax.
This will only be modified by congress until we get back to what we have now.
Why not have a national sales (Consumption or Value Added) tax, and fire most of the IRS employees. We should call this a "Value Added Tax" or a "Consumption Tax" because this will be easier to sell to the US public.
The existing tax code is voluminous, contradictory, purposely subjectively written, not understandable, and so much of it is widely subject to interpretation.
A national sales tax might be more equitable.
This could also eliminate most of the IRS employees.
Make uncooked food, used clothing, rent up to a minimum monthly amount, used vehicles, and any similar items tax exempt to help the poor.
Businesses would also pay these taxes on new plant constructions, new plant expansions, plant maintenance supplies, replacement parts, consumable office supplies, and other similar expense items that are used in the manufacture of products (and not re-sold).
2
Gerald I heard in Republican and corporate world, mentioning Value added tax is the same as dictating atheism in old deep south.
Watch your words men, You cannot offer VAT to republican is a fair tax deal.
The main idea is Hubbard says, how we can make Rich pays the less tax. That is all.
Watch your words men, You cannot offer VAT to republican is a fair tax deal.
The main idea is Hubbard says, how we can make Rich pays the less tax. That is all.
1
No matter how much evidence exists that Hubbard and his ilk are dead wrong, they double down. That's typical of the Republican think tanks and the Republican robots who spout ideology as if it were policy, and who talk dogma as if it were proven existentially. As long as the wealthy get wealthier, and they did, even during the poor performing Bush years and during and after the Great Recession, they are happy. Quite simply, they have been proven WRONG on every important policy point, yet they never change course. I believe that's the definition of something.
Didn't we try these same old failed ideas of trickle down and no safety nets and everyone on their own? When top 5% gets 70-80% of fruits of all growth, how can you say that it will be cure-all?
Hubbard is either disingenuous or--for such a famous economist--remarkably foolish. Eliminating taxes on income repatriated from abroad is tantamount to eliminating the corporate income tax for multinational corporations, since they can rig their accounting to make income appear to come from whatever nation they please. And simply giving people a subsidy to buy health insurance on the open market doesn't take the place of the Obamacare exchanges, because insurers have historically charged dramatically high rates for individual policies since they fear the population of individual customers is sicker than the population of employer-provided group policies.
1
Is there any basis at all for the Republican mantra assertion that:
"raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion."?
The same old 'don't tax job creator' talk.
Republicans labeled the ACA as a 'job killer', but employment increased substantially after it was implemented, which of course Mitch McConnell claims was due to optimism that Republicans were taking over.
Mr Hubbard is not presenting ideas, just a regurgitation of the Republican mantra.
"raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion."?
The same old 'don't tax job creator' talk.
Republicans labeled the ACA as a 'job killer', but employment increased substantially after it was implemented, which of course Mitch McConnell claims was due to optimism that Republicans were taking over.
Mr Hubbard is not presenting ideas, just a regurgitation of the Republican mantra.
Funny, your program of economic redistribution was wildly successful, of course it was being redistributed o the wealthily but still....
2
It's hard to believe Hubbard has survived this long as a dean of Columbia Business School. His opinions far exceed his facts--not a good place to be.
1
When an economy is growing sufficiently to assure steadily increasing consumer demand, businesses will continually expand their production of goods and services to meet that demand. In addition, in that kind of situation supply side policies may facilitate increasing demand but all economic expansion represents sales which drive demand upwards not upon inventories or liquid assets available for investment. If the sales are not there, money invested and tied up in big inventories and eaten up by overhead and inflation while businesses wait for customers to buy is diminished. The accumulation of wealth is good for the wealthy in the short run but if growth is stagnated by consumer demand constrained by stagnated increase in consumer wealth future opportunities for the wealthy to replace and to increase their wealth gradually diminishes. Economies are not simple and they are not unitary systems. Taxes which are inadequate result in inefficient government, poor enforcement of the laws, incentives by businesses to ignore what it good for all in the long run but less profitable in the short run, and the accumulation of debts all of which eventually diminish the growth of the economy by affecting different key factors. Hubbard holds a very simplistic view of the economy which leads to his simplistic proposals.
Wow. Well, at the very least, after reading this ridiculous screed based on failed ideas championed by the author that devastated this country a short while back, I know I'm not sending any of my kids to Columbia Business School.
1
The conservatives are always bashing liberals for wanting "free stuff." They are always trying to reduce their taxes and yet expect roads and bridges to remain clear and stable for their use, police and fire departments to rush to their homes, and FEMA to assist them whenever disaster strikes. All of these (and many more) government services at their service and yet they continue to clamor for less and less taxes.
Tell me again who is wanting "free stuff".
Tell me again who is wanting "free stuff".
2
How Glen Hubbard managed to get a PhD from Harvard is one of the great mysteries in life. Barely any of his points deserve much of a hearing. Sure lets expand the child tax credit and the EITC but other than that the rest of his ideas have been tried and they fail. There are only so many ways to provide health insurance to everyone: on the one end you have single payer and on the other you have a more conservative system involving mandates and subsidies.
1
This op-ed is advocacy parading as good economics.
“Trickling down” was to imply that if more money went to the richest, their spending would stimulate more jobs than if it went to those trying to make ends meet.
How’s that worked in the 30 years since the voting public got persuaded that this ‘trickle’ was in their and this country’s best interests? The trickling has been up, not down. Whatever jobs were created were not those supporting dignity and security for the many who work for a living.
Income distribution data show this. A Gini coefficient of ‘1’ means all income goes to one person and of ‘0’ to all equally. By the late 2000s, pre-tax coefficients in only five other OECD countries were above the 49% of the US: Mexico, Portugal, Israel, Italy and Germany. All six had ‘trickled up’ since the mid-80s. But the tax code in many was progressive, so after tax-coefficients in only three were above the US’ 38%: Turkey, Mexico and Chile.
Official US tax data show this regressivity: 116 of the 400 individuals with the highest incomes paid less than 20% effective tax rates in 2009; in 1999 only 39 paid rates that low. 19% of those with at least $200,000 ‘adjusted gross income’ paid no income tax in 2010, up from less than 5% before the Reagan tax cuts.
Beyond numbers, we just learned that half of public school children are from families below the poverty line.
“Trickling down” was to imply that if more money went to the richest, their spending would stimulate more jobs than if it went to those trying to make ends meet.
How’s that worked in the 30 years since the voting public got persuaded that this ‘trickle’ was in their and this country’s best interests? The trickling has been up, not down. Whatever jobs were created were not those supporting dignity and security for the many who work for a living.
Income distribution data show this. A Gini coefficient of ‘1’ means all income goes to one person and of ‘0’ to all equally. By the late 2000s, pre-tax coefficients in only five other OECD countries were above the 49% of the US: Mexico, Portugal, Israel, Italy and Germany. All six had ‘trickled up’ since the mid-80s. But the tax code in many was progressive, so after tax-coefficients in only three were above the US’ 38%: Turkey, Mexico and Chile.
Official US tax data show this regressivity: 116 of the 400 individuals with the highest incomes paid less than 20% effective tax rates in 2009; in 1999 only 39 paid rates that low. 19% of those with at least $200,000 ‘adjusted gross income’ paid no income tax in 2010, up from less than 5% before the Reagan tax cuts.
Beyond numbers, we just learned that half of public school children are from families below the poverty line.
Those individuals at the top of the economic pyramid don't get their income from "wages", so it really doesn't matter how progressive you make the wage tax. Just thought I'd mention that. Also "making work more attractive" stinks of blaming the labor force. "Work" would be more "attractive" if there was more of it available if the top of the pyramid hadn't salted away the "capital" in offshore tax havens and sent it to overseas sweatshops.
2
Many good points, but:
1. "Use the individual income tax to better reward work". Why not use the income tax to discourage "non-work" by raising the capital gains rate? As Pikkety discusses, a society that disproportionately rewards rentiers over labor ends up highly inequitable and economically moribund.
2. Privatization of Medicare? Go tell that to the Veterans Administration, with its highly cost-effective single payer health system. Insurance companies are middlemen. The ACA may in the long run reduce costs, but that will be a happy side effect of increasing the pool of insured and directing them to lower cost care (regular doctor's visits instead of midnight visits to the ER). Fundamentally insurance companies are middlemen, and middlemen can grease the wheels but should not be disproprortionatley rewarded.
And please tell me how our infrastructure gets rebuilt through the miracle of the marketplace? The right's 30-year love affair with making government small enough to drown in the bathtub has led to a truly pathetic situation where the richest people on earth have the worst roads in the developed world, bridges that are falling down, horrific cell phone reception, inadequate broadband coverage, an electrical grid that will get fried during the next major storm....
When will it change?
1. "Use the individual income tax to better reward work". Why not use the income tax to discourage "non-work" by raising the capital gains rate? As Pikkety discusses, a society that disproportionately rewards rentiers over labor ends up highly inequitable and economically moribund.
2. Privatization of Medicare? Go tell that to the Veterans Administration, with its highly cost-effective single payer health system. Insurance companies are middlemen. The ACA may in the long run reduce costs, but that will be a happy side effect of increasing the pool of insured and directing them to lower cost care (regular doctor's visits instead of midnight visits to the ER). Fundamentally insurance companies are middlemen, and middlemen can grease the wheels but should not be disproprortionatley rewarded.
And please tell me how our infrastructure gets rebuilt through the miracle of the marketplace? The right's 30-year love affair with making government small enough to drown in the bathtub has led to a truly pathetic situation where the richest people on earth have the worst roads in the developed world, bridges that are falling down, horrific cell phone reception, inadequate broadband coverage, an electrical grid that will get fried during the next major storm....
When will it change?
1
This author served as an economic advisor to George W. Bush, the president who presided over the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. And now he wants to advise the current president, the one who pulled us out of that collapse, that everything Obama is doing is wrong. Can anyone say "hubris"?
"To reduce future deficits in these programs and to free up funds to support work and opportunity for younger workers in the future, Social Security benefit growth would be slowed for more affluent individuals."
No thanks. People should get out in proportion to what they put in, regardless of how much other money they have saved. I've been putting in for 35 years and I should not be punished for also saving money. Neither should anyone else. The PROBLEM is 11 million people collecting disability out of this same fund. Many of them are not truly disabled.
No thanks. People should get out in proportion to what they put in, regardless of how much other money they have saved. I've been putting in for 35 years and I should not be punished for also saving money. Neither should anyone else. The PROBLEM is 11 million people collecting disability out of this same fund. Many of them are not truly disabled.
2
Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, for your learned opinion on 'redistribution' versus 'trickle-down' economy.
As a trickle-down economist advising George W., that policy really turned this country into a land of milk and honey, didn't it?
As a trickle-down economist advising George W., that policy really turned this country into a land of milk and honey, didn't it?
3
It's so tedious to hear Republicans talk like this. We've been living with their economic ideas since Reagan. They only serve to transfer more money to the wealthiest. They haven't worked to expand the middle class, which is what they claim they want. To paraphrase what President Obama said about Cuba, if a policy hasn't worked for decades isn't it time to try something else?
1
I'm a registered Republican. With that being said, my biggest issue with the tax code is the unfairness as it relates to the way trust fund babies are taxed versus the way people who work for a living are treated.
I will not opine on what the right tax rate is but there should be equality in the tax code for income regardless of the source. Maybe we should eliminate income tax and institute a VAT plus a wealth tax. The status quo is no longer working given the changes in our economy.
As a Republican, the party better come out with some innovative solutions instead of rehashing the same tired lines. The 21st Century economy is different from that of the 20th Century and therefore the tax code needs to adapt to the change.
I will not opine on what the right tax rate is but there should be equality in the tax code for income regardless of the source. Maybe we should eliminate income tax and institute a VAT plus a wealth tax. The status quo is no longer working given the changes in our economy.
As a Republican, the party better come out with some innovative solutions instead of rehashing the same tired lines. The 21st Century economy is different from that of the 20th Century and therefore the tax code needs to adapt to the change.
20
The way to get equality in the tax code is to tax capital gains as income from labor is taxed. Capital gains on Mom & Pop's small holdings should be taxed at their low rate; capital gains for the Koch brothers should be taxed at their high rate. Even Reagan conceded there is no sane reason to tax the money Joe Sixpack sweated to earn at a higher rate than Mortimer Plutocrat's capital gains.
1
VATs are inherently unfair as they fall disproportionately on those who spend most of their income, as opposed to a progressive income tax which theoretically is supposed to put a burden on each tax payer proportional to their ability to pay. I totally agree with you on leveling the tax structure so that inherited income is taxed similarly to earned income (deferred income should be taxed at the same rates as well) but that idea is functionally antithetical to a VAT or national sale tax.
No. What business needs to grow are CUSTOMERS! It's as simple as that. Only a redistributive policy will provide them. Our economy has always shown best performance when it is consumer driven. We did very well economically even with a 91% tax on high earners, and later a 75% tax. How quickly people forget.
Why is redistribution up the economic scale fine and dandy but redistribution down always a problem?
2
Sad to see that Columbia has a dean of economics who is ignorant of economic facts or theory. The statements uttered here are equivalent to having the dean of a prestigious medical school telling the public not to vaccinate their children. Not only are they false, they show irascible dogmatic ignorance. Shame.
4
Redistribution has already occurred, with income moving to the very wealthy. We need a correction in this extreme imbalance and it needs to be a mandated correction or the imbalance will continue to put our country at risk.
Given his background with W, why would anyone even bother to read this?
It's already failed and nearly ruined the country/world.
Stop crediting anything these people spew.
May as well invite Cheney to talk about no torture.
It's already failed and nearly ruined the country/world.
Stop crediting anything these people spew.
May as well invite Cheney to talk about no torture.
These proposals are old, worn, and ridiculous, failing to even acknowledge, much less address, the root causes of inequality described by Thomas Piketty.
Mr. Hubbard was Mitt Romney's main economic advisor and is the favorite economist of the 0.1%. "If we could just get Americans to work harder," they say. The part they leave out: "(for us)."
Mr. Hubbard was Mitt Romney's main economic advisor and is the favorite economist of the 0.1%. "If we could just get Americans to work harder," they say. The part they leave out: "(for us)."
What every worker needs to be provided to them by law is what a good union contract provides: a living wage, health insurance, sick leave, short and long term disability, and a retirement plan so that they can live with dignity after a lifetime of work.
An employer's profits should come after he has paid the employees.
The cost of these items do not magically disappear because the employer does not pay them. What happens is the costs of these item fall upon the government to provide and we all end up paying for it.
This distorts the real cost of goods. Costco provides health insurance to its employees and another big box that doesn't. When you leave Costco you have paid for the item. When you leave the other big box you are not finished paying for the item. When the other big box employee gets sick he goes to the hospital and is unable to pay the bill the hospital tacks that cost on everyone else's bill. His bill is placed on your health insurance as the additional cost of providing health care to the uninsured. So an additional charge for the item you bought at the other big box is showing up on the cost for your health insurance policy.
An employer's profits should come after he has paid the employees.
The cost of these items do not magically disappear because the employer does not pay them. What happens is the costs of these item fall upon the government to provide and we all end up paying for it.
This distorts the real cost of goods. Costco provides health insurance to its employees and another big box that doesn't. When you leave Costco you have paid for the item. When you leave the other big box you are not finished paying for the item. When the other big box employee gets sick he goes to the hospital and is unable to pay the bill the hospital tacks that cost on everyone else's bill. His bill is placed on your health insurance as the additional cost of providing health care to the uninsured. So an additional charge for the item you bought at the other big box is showing up on the cost for your health insurance policy.
1
So, once the reality of income inequality is addressed, including the need for the wealthiest among us to finally pay their fair share- all of the sudden the President's proposals are unreasonable, "unrealistic", and are "bad ideas".
I even sense broad hints of a "flat-tax" suggestion in this article. Of course, that's been a favorite idea of the right for decades, as it masquerades as a "reasonable" response to tax reform, when in reality it places a heavier burden upon those with less economic resources.
Then again, the author was an economic chairman under George W. Bush, and we all know how that administration left our economy in such stellar shape. I guess it's only class warfare once the middle class starts fighting back?
I even sense broad hints of a "flat-tax" suggestion in this article. Of course, that's been a favorite idea of the right for decades, as it masquerades as a "reasonable" response to tax reform, when in reality it places a heavier burden upon those with less economic resources.
Then again, the author was an economic chairman under George W. Bush, and we all know how that administration left our economy in such stellar shape. I guess it's only class warfare once the middle class starts fighting back?
Funny how it's called "redistribution" when less of the money goes to corporations and the super-rich, and "fair" when we're soaking the poor and the middle class and funneling that money upward. I'd like to see Mr. Hubbard explain with a straight face to a person working two or three minimum wage jobs that they're not working hard enough and don't deserve the outrageous money that a first year investment banker pulls down. On second though, he could probably pull it off. He isn't just drinking the cool aid, he's one of the guys who mixed it in the first place.
If the poor don't have money to spend, they don't spend it. When people don't spend money and create a demand for jobs from corporations, corporations don't hire people. The more people who are unable to buy goods, the less business there is for business and corporations have to lay people off. That's why wealth and income inequality is bad for economic growth.
For an excellently written article, look up the article "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats" by Nick Hanauner
For an excellently written article, look up the article "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats" by Nick Hanauner
Well now, I am no expert but I have read and heard variations on this every since Reagan's first run for office. That man surely did have a nice smile.
There needs to be one tax code that is progressive based upon wages and appreciated income.
I wasn't too clear though about your overseas taxation. Are you talking about businesses that have moved their center of operations overseas or are you talking about your average every day citizens who are living overseas? That does make a real difference you know? Ordinary citizens working in ordinary jobs, oh like Clerks, Nurses, Mechanics, Secretaries, well, they make ordinary incomes actually. Considering that they are already paying 50%+ in taxes to the countries they live in it is going to cost the US more to harass them than get any money from them. Why? Shouldn't all Americans pay their taxes. Yes, indeedy, I agree with that philosophy. But taxes we pay to the countries we live in far outweigh those we would pay if we lived in the US. Unless of course you're advocating that American overseas just drop their American citizenship...Oh, wait, every year more and more expats are doing just that. There's your other fly in the ointment.
Nope. If you want to know how to fix the American economy then you look at FDR, not at Reagan or any other Republican.
There needs to be one tax code that is progressive based upon wages and appreciated income.
I wasn't too clear though about your overseas taxation. Are you talking about businesses that have moved their center of operations overseas or are you talking about your average every day citizens who are living overseas? That does make a real difference you know? Ordinary citizens working in ordinary jobs, oh like Clerks, Nurses, Mechanics, Secretaries, well, they make ordinary incomes actually. Considering that they are already paying 50%+ in taxes to the countries they live in it is going to cost the US more to harass them than get any money from them. Why? Shouldn't all Americans pay their taxes. Yes, indeedy, I agree with that philosophy. But taxes we pay to the countries we live in far outweigh those we would pay if we lived in the US. Unless of course you're advocating that American overseas just drop their American citizenship...Oh, wait, every year more and more expats are doing just that. There's your other fly in the ointment.
Nope. If you want to know how to fix the American economy then you look at FDR, not at Reagan or any other Republican.
Mr. Hubbard's ideas for growth are actually redistribution of wealth through private rather than public means, with the beneficiaries of same being the corporations and fiscal scions that have always benefited from a fundamentally unequal social safety net. Under Mr. Hubbard's tutelage, we witnessed the collapse of the fiscal sector at the end of George W. Bush's tenure, thanks in no small part to the mentality that rewards corporations and banks for the reckless pursuit of self-reward while diminishing wherever possible the regulatory hurdles that might otherwise protect Americans from undue exposure. With wisdom like Mr. Hubbard's, we saw the collapse of Lehman and AIG, as well as the car manufacturers; we saw a meteoric rise in income inequality; we saw untold numbers of Americans without health care; and we saw the deliberate fraying of the social safety net for Americans caught in the vise of conservative protection for corporations. Yes, Mr. Hubbard knows a lot about growth--only the beneficiaries of his scheme are the same oligarchs that have swallowed ever-greater portions of the dividends while allowing the rest to wallow in what little remains.
Maybe it's premature to suggest that the uber-leftist talking points the president put forth are unrealistic ---- though I don't think it's premature -- before his budget is submitted and tells us how he thinks they're affordable. But SOME ideas might stand a chance in the 114th Congress. For instance some kind of tax reform, even if the president wants one kind of reform and the GOP wants a much different kind. Same thing for immigration reform. Much as the GOP wants entitlement reform, it's also clear the president and his ilk will prevent that. The president is correct that the left and the right in both houses of Congress are talking past each other, but it's spiteful to blame only one side for the impasse.
For six years we've listened to Republicans tell us how terribly Obama is doing and yet the unemployment rate is down to 5.6% and the economy has been growing for years - all this without an ounce of help from Republicans. Redistribution began in America because Republicans did nothing in the face of economic devastation. Their apathy got FDR elected, 4 times. In the mid-sixties, after the post war boom had left millions of Americans in poverty and retirees unable to buy health insurance, LBJ stepped in with a solution. Then, in the 1990's when Republicans killed every reasonable attempt to reform healthcare, including a very sensible Patient Bill of Rights, the door was opened for Obamacare. And now this Hubbard guy wants to write about growth and opportunity when Republicans are steadfastly against raising the minimum wage, determined to gut Dodd-Frank and delusionally attached to the notion that cutting taxes on the rich somehow stimulates the economy, which by the way, isn't in need of stimulation. Yes, it would be far better if all these entitlement programs weren't needed, but even 71 years since the New Deal launched Republicans still believe the free market is the only fair and moral arbiter of wages in America. I love capitalism as much as I love a 1960's muscle car, but I want a steering wheel and brakes in both. Get Republicans to understand that concept and we can have a real country.
1
Here is an equation that needs to be balanced producer goods= consumers demand. In this new world of globalization it is possible to enlsave the middle class and still find consumers outside the US. Or we could balance the equation internally. If you don't like the idea balancing the equation by giving the money to the middle class then just raise the minimum wage at the same rate as college tuition goes up. To keep companies from going oversees for cheap labor, then you can use the tax code to level the playing field.
The goal is really to keep the upper 1% from being to exploitative of human resources and natural resources.
The goal is really to keep the upper 1% from being to exploitative of human resources and natural resources.
1
The fact is we already have a system of distribution, one determined by laws governing labor, commerce, trade, and taxation. The current arrangement has led to a level of inequality that had undermined our democracy and threatens domestic stability. We need to make the system of distribution a fair one.
If the President's proposals are only "talking points", what do you call this? Limiting deductions for the affluent has been part of the tax code since the 1986 reforms. How is this different? A single tax on business income? At what rate? Is it integrated with the personal income tax, or not? He proposes an expanded earned income credit, but then talks about abolishing the earned income credit. This is just poorly edited hash. The President's speech had a vision, which this does not.
25
Yes, it has a vision, the same vision the GOP has had for generations...
Was it really necessary for this guy to come sling voodoo at us on a Thursday?
3
Though generally liberal to libertarian on most issues, I also found Obama's economic prescription to be extremely limited.
The rich already pay enough in taxes, in huge disproportion to the lowest half of earners who pay almost nothing. Everyone should have skin in the game.
'Free' education sends the wrong message, in my mind. I agree with Mr. Hubbard that one should instead allow education expenses to be fully deductible. I have not been able to deduct any education expenses for years because I 'make too much money' according to the IRS, a ridiculous proposition when I have to scramble every month to pay the bills.
Further, Mr Hubbard is right that raising taxes on investments not only lowers asset prices, but strongly discourages saving/investing for the future. If everyone put all of their money in banks no one would pay any interest whatsoever.
As one who knows the tax code fairly well I should also point out that the lower- to middle- class already have huge tax breaks, the biggest two of which are the per-child deduction and the mortgage deduction, not to mention the overly generous standard deduction. Where does it end?
As a two-time and fervent Obama supporter I thought his economic points were half-baked. If the Democrats more and more become the party of Elizabeth Warren I'll have to become and Independent.
The rich already pay enough in taxes, in huge disproportion to the lowest half of earners who pay almost nothing. Everyone should have skin in the game.
'Free' education sends the wrong message, in my mind. I agree with Mr. Hubbard that one should instead allow education expenses to be fully deductible. I have not been able to deduct any education expenses for years because I 'make too much money' according to the IRS, a ridiculous proposition when I have to scramble every month to pay the bills.
Further, Mr Hubbard is right that raising taxes on investments not only lowers asset prices, but strongly discourages saving/investing for the future. If everyone put all of their money in banks no one would pay any interest whatsoever.
As one who knows the tax code fairly well I should also point out that the lower- to middle- class already have huge tax breaks, the biggest two of which are the per-child deduction and the mortgage deduction, not to mention the overly generous standard deduction. Where does it end?
As a two-time and fervent Obama supporter I thought his economic points were half-baked. If the Democrats more and more become the party of Elizabeth Warren I'll have to become and Independent.
7
It is indeed true that the wealthy pay most of the total taxes. That's because they are paid most of the total income.
But it is also true that the wealthy pay a substantially lower percentage of their own incomes in taxes than do the non-wealthy pay on their incomes.
But it is also true that the wealthy pay a substantially lower percentage of their own incomes in taxes than do the non-wealthy pay on their incomes.
3
And what of the AMT?
You're already a Republican, Why not admit it, and change parties? Your liberalism, if it actually exists, probably covers the social issues, not the economic ones. On the money issues, you stand with the money.
1
Just a couple random thoughts in response.
Lower tax rates on Capital Gains is a boost to the economy. The goal should be that all of us participate in investment. Especially the young workers. Therefore the need for a livable mimimum wage, adjusted for cost of living.
The cap on wages for purpose of Social Security is unfair to the vast majority of workers. Why should I pay the tax on the first 117 thousand odd dollars like everyone else, but then get a pass on the next X thousands all the way to infinity?
The ACA. It demonstrated the terrible state of health care finance in our country. Private health care insurance issued by for profit companies is a manifest failure that proves that in some crucial areas, pure Capitalism is a failure. What ever plan you are buying today, you are buying catastrophic insurance. With deductables ranging from 3-6 thousand dollars per person and more per family, almost no one can afford to seek care. In this time when health care can finally improve the quality and quantity of life, it should be provided for all in a not-for profit system.
We need economics that addresses the messyness of human society. Poverty and inequality are at the root of our ills. We who have the means should be willing to pay fairly.
Lower tax rates on Capital Gains is a boost to the economy. The goal should be that all of us participate in investment. Especially the young workers. Therefore the need for a livable mimimum wage, adjusted for cost of living.
The cap on wages for purpose of Social Security is unfair to the vast majority of workers. Why should I pay the tax on the first 117 thousand odd dollars like everyone else, but then get a pass on the next X thousands all the way to infinity?
The ACA. It demonstrated the terrible state of health care finance in our country. Private health care insurance issued by for profit companies is a manifest failure that proves that in some crucial areas, pure Capitalism is a failure. What ever plan you are buying today, you are buying catastrophic insurance. With deductables ranging from 3-6 thousand dollars per person and more per family, almost no one can afford to seek care. In this time when health care can finally improve the quality and quantity of life, it should be provided for all in a not-for profit system.
We need economics that addresses the messyness of human society. Poverty and inequality are at the root of our ills. We who have the means should be willing to pay fairly.
26
What is the cause of the working class wage depreciation in the last two decades?
How can President Obama, or anyone else, think that any of the big or small US manufacturing businesses could ever economically justify creating and/or keeping any of the higher paying semi-skilled manufacturing jobs in the USA if they are hamstrung with many times more expensive labor costs, electrical energy costs, health care payroll tax costs, unemployment payroll tax costs, social security and medical care payroll tax costs, environmental compliance manufacturing costs, OSHA compliance payroll costs, union labor work rules, anti-business laws, and general anti-business attitudes that make manufacturing products in the USA many times more costly than manufacturing the same product in almost any other foreign country in accordance with the existing US Free Trade Agreements?
US businesses that are considering creating or keeping jobs in the USA also consider that while paying US citizens employed in the USA much higher (hourly wages) pay scales that are many times above the wages that they pay foreigners in foreign Asian nations, they must also justify the additional costs of EPA compliance the additional US labor payroll costs that the national healthcare, unemployment insurance, social security, and other federal government payroll taxes add on top of the direct costs of US labor payrolls when economically and financially justifying where to locate a new manufacturing facility.
How can President Obama, or anyone else, think that any of the big or small US manufacturing businesses could ever economically justify creating and/or keeping any of the higher paying semi-skilled manufacturing jobs in the USA if they are hamstrung with many times more expensive labor costs, electrical energy costs, health care payroll tax costs, unemployment payroll tax costs, social security and medical care payroll tax costs, environmental compliance manufacturing costs, OSHA compliance payroll costs, union labor work rules, anti-business laws, and general anti-business attitudes that make manufacturing products in the USA many times more costly than manufacturing the same product in almost any other foreign country in accordance with the existing US Free Trade Agreements?
US businesses that are considering creating or keeping jobs in the USA also consider that while paying US citizens employed in the USA much higher (hourly wages) pay scales that are many times above the wages that they pay foreigners in foreign Asian nations, they must also justify the additional costs of EPA compliance the additional US labor payroll costs that the national healthcare, unemployment insurance, social security, and other federal government payroll taxes add on top of the direct costs of US labor payrolls when economically and financially justifying where to locate a new manufacturing facility.
1
Regarding your comment on Social Security: Taxes are capped for the very simple reason that benefits for these people are also capped.
1
Why should we consider income from a particular source to be in a preferential tax bracket?
The tax code should have one line:
1) Llist all income from all sources
Tax would be paid based on that total, with progressively higher rates for higher incomes.
No deductions, no exemptions, no accounting trickery.
The tax code should have one line:
1) Llist all income from all sources
Tax would be paid based on that total, with progressively higher rates for higher incomes.
No deductions, no exemptions, no accounting trickery.
3
In 1986 the capital gains tax rate was raised to 28% (while the rate on ordinary income was reduced to 28%). The result -- revenues to the Federal Government from capital gains taxes decreased by half the next year, and wouldn't attain the 1986 level until 1996. When Clinton reduced rates, the following year revenues to the Federal Government increased 70%.
5
Personally, I'll take that chance. Capital gains need to be realized at some point ... we should not allow them to be magically erased at death either. The fact is, unearned income should not get preferential treatment out of basic fairness, if for no other reason.
Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, felt that unearned income actually deserved less protection. Since earned income was limited to the amount of work one could perform, earned income had an upper bound. Not so for unearned income.
You can say a lot of things about Mellon, but he was a capitalist to the bone. If he was OK with gouging the wealthy, who am I to quibble?
Herbert Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, felt that unearned income actually deserved less protection. Since earned income was limited to the amount of work one could perform, earned income had an upper bound. Not so for unearned income.
You can say a lot of things about Mellon, but he was a capitalist to the bone. If he was OK with gouging the wealthy, who am I to quibble?
3
I see merit in wide ranging discussions of tax reform. I have my own favorite suggestions: 1. Tax corporate profits only on those retained and not on distributed dividends.; 2. Tax recipient's dividends at regular income rates; 3. Tax capital gains at regular income rates with cost basis adjusted for inflation. These changes would seem fair and eliminate most of the discrepancies between taxation of labor versus capital.
1
Wasn't Hubbard the architect of the GW Bush economic plan? Shouldn't failure lead to the dustbin of history? The recent Times article reviewing medicaid health care expenses and outcome in Arkansas vs. Vermont show how irresponsible some States can be. I went to SIPA not CBS but I still know that tax deductions lose their value if the marginal tax rate is low.
1
Ask anyone with integrity that is now working two jobs to make ends meet, raising a family, paying tuition, mortgage etc. and they will almost certainly tell you that they regret not working harder in school, getting a college education and then focus on leveraging that education to avoid what they are currently up against. Gov't programs should be designed to pave the way for this type of behaviour. Sadly the simplistic and divisive tactic of morality plays setting haves and the have nots against each other results in little or no economic change for the rich, the poor or the middle class. We need some fresh out of the box thinking to have real change.
2
President Obama's economic ideas may not be all that good, however they are much preferred over Glenn Hubbard's economic ideas of the old trickle down foolishness.
This mid westerner would like to see the entire tax code/structure tossed in the refuse can and a much simpler, with no deductions, credits and loopholes, into play. Of Course that would put a lot of tax lawyers & preparers out of work, but what's wrong with that?
The more complicated the tax laws the more opportunity for cheating and the more money a person makes the more they can cheat.
This mid westerner would like to see the entire tax code/structure tossed in the refuse can and a much simpler, with no deductions, credits and loopholes, into play. Of Course that would put a lot of tax lawyers & preparers out of work, but what's wrong with that?
The more complicated the tax laws the more opportunity for cheating and the more money a person makes the more they can cheat.
2
Beware of apologists for the 1% who talk about "entitlement reform." Social security in reality is far less of an entitlement than what corporate rulers expect today as impossibly large salaries and gold plated benefits packages. The rich just are not paying their fair share. It is time they did. The truly "bad economic ideas" are those that will not face up to this inconvenient truth. Income inequality in the US today borders on the obscene. Thank you President Obama for trying to do something about it, although this congress is already owned by the highest bidders.
2
I'm so sick of everyone pretending that these proposals are just bad ideas, put forth in good faith, which won't work out in the real world. These proposals were never intended to help America or its citizens. They were crafted to increase the wealth of the billionaire class at the expense of everyone else, but they have to be packaged and sold by people like Mr. Hubbard on "the rest of us" that aren't billionaires. When these policies are enacted and they make income inequality worse, not better, it is because they succeeded in tricking average citizens to give all their money to billionaires, not because they failed to take some economic factor into account.
2
"Growth" is what is killing ecosystems and exhausting our planet's resources. Both parties are incapable of seeing that. We need a new economic system, neither Capitalist nor Socialist, that places value upon conservation, population reduction, and regeneration of the earth.
You won't hear any calls for that sort of future in a B-School Curriculum, where only tools for the currently doomed system graduate.
You won't hear any calls for that sort of future in a B-School Curriculum, where only tools for the currently doomed system graduate.
3
Remember everyone: this is the Bush adviser who declined to answer questions on camera about his private holdings in financial firms for which he advocated deregulation, and, ultimately, a gargantuan tax-payer bailout.
So we have proof that Hubbard's conscience is severely limited. This article happens to prove that he's also a B- student, at best.
So we have proof that Hubbard's conscience is severely limited. This article happens to prove that he's also a B- student, at best.
2
same old cheney-bush rants. your ideas have failed repeatedly. why would they work now.
more important, your efforts to support the highest income disparity in our history are counter-productive. such wealth gaps in western history have produced revolution during downturns.
better we give up some bucks in taxes than to produce revolution.
more important, your efforts to support the highest income disparity in our history are counter-productive. such wealth gaps in western history have produced revolution during downturns.
better we give up some bucks in taxes than to produce revolution.
2
This whole article is exactly why George H.W. Bush coined the phrase "voodoo economics". The entire system depends on the magnanimity of the absolute richest among us. They have shown they have none. Ask for a dime an hour raise for the rank and file and they go berserk. "..tax deduction for their own health insurance and health savings account as incomes rise." A tax deduction for a Walmart "associate" will certainly pay for a health insurance premium of $10,000...half of his/her income? Please.
4
Hubbard's answer to our economic malaise wrought of high inequality and lax aggregate demand is to propose steps that further increase inequality and will surely weaken aggregate demand. Just what the Dr. ordered!
And he's the Dean of Columbia Business School...no wonder the country is a mess. I would note that the good scholar's erudition fails to include a single link to a reference backing up the specifics of his program in the Op Ed article.
Either economists know absolutely nothing - which I rather doubt - or these are the political talking points du jour of the Republicans and their wealthy patrons.
And he's the Dean of Columbia Business School...no wonder the country is a mess. I would note that the good scholar's erudition fails to include a single link to a reference backing up the specifics of his program in the Op Ed article.
Either economists know absolutely nothing - which I rather doubt - or these are the political talking points du jour of the Republicans and their wealthy patrons.
1
I'm no economist, but it seems to me that *companies* have been growing their bottom line and dividends quite nicely as they benefit from all the loopholes, tax shelters and handouts that politicians can shovel their way.
None of that has grown wages or supported economic mobility. In fact, even as companies receive these taxpayer funded benefits, they turn around and hand employees more of the economic burden of running the company: higher medical costs, fewer (or no) sick days, mandated overtime and less opportunity to actually take vacation days.
Remind me again how the unwashed masses don't need what Obama's selling?
None of that has grown wages or supported economic mobility. In fact, even as companies receive these taxpayer funded benefits, they turn around and hand employees more of the economic burden of running the company: higher medical costs, fewer (or no) sick days, mandated overtime and less opportunity to actually take vacation days.
Remind me again how the unwashed masses don't need what Obama's selling?
1
The moment the term “redistribution” appears you pretty much know a litany of nonsensical jargon, designed to intimidate and obfuscate, is about to appear. And, an attempt to justify a society with a distribution of wealth and power that is concentrated in the hands of a small minority generally born into wealth and a birthright to rule.
Those who share this vision of society have had a lot of success in the last few decades. They have managed to weaken anything that competes for their power. The list of losers includes labor unions, all public institutions, minorities, our democratic government and science. They now seem to be in control of every resource of any importance, with jobs topping the list. We have become a patronage society. The previously publicly funded science show, NOVA, now has to go looking for patrons – does anyone really believe that NOVA could do an honest show about global warming and still receive funding from David Koch.
The same people that talk about the magic of free markets and competitive forces, deliver legislation that limits our choices and require that we pay heavy tolls to a monopolistic cable company to connect to an otherwise free internet. This is not about free markets and free competition, this is about freedom for the wealthy and powerful to do as they please and answer to no one as though they were modern day Medici.
Those who share this vision of society have had a lot of success in the last few decades. They have managed to weaken anything that competes for their power. The list of losers includes labor unions, all public institutions, minorities, our democratic government and science. They now seem to be in control of every resource of any importance, with jobs topping the list. We have become a patronage society. The previously publicly funded science show, NOVA, now has to go looking for patrons – does anyone really believe that NOVA could do an honest show about global warming and still receive funding from David Koch.
The same people that talk about the magic of free markets and competitive forces, deliver legislation that limits our choices and require that we pay heavy tolls to a monopolistic cable company to connect to an otherwise free internet. This is not about free markets and free competition, this is about freedom for the wealthy and powerful to do as they please and answer to no one as though they were modern day Medici.
4
"..held hostage to the misguided idea that tax cuts and tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone, and to the faulty assumption that beneficial tax reform will not raise economic activity."
Translation. Balance tax cuts for corporations by increasing taxes for everyone else. Corporations will have more economic activity if shoppers have less income and time to go shopping.
Translation. Balance tax cuts for corporations by increasing taxes for everyone else. Corporations will have more economic activity if shoppers have less income and time to go shopping.
1
I am wondering when the Trickle in "trickle down" will start? The answer is never because that and other theories put forth from the Reagan era are nothing but religious proclamations with no evidence that they work in reality. I feel that there should be confiscatory taxes on the 0.1% maybe at a 90% rate. I can already hear that they will "take their money elsewhere" I am confident that the US government will be able to collect wherever in the world that money goes.
2
The lowest tax rate (federal) in the US is 15%.. beginning at 10K or something like that. WHY? is there any tax at all for people earning less than 30K?
Everyone pays the same in taxes on goods, services -- except in NY and NJ we don't pay on clothing costing less than 100$ and most food. The super rich get senior rates on everything!! The interest rate for saving is less than 1% and there are suggestions left and right to extend prison sentences (buy prison stock?)
In the long ago 50s the top tax bracket (do people even understand or want to understand this concept) as about 95%. There was a 10% luxury tax. Europe had to rebuild = growth.
Frankly, half the time I think people don't know what they are talking about. BTW the private sector does not seem to do a great job of reasonably priced transportation -- plane tickets are awfully expensive these days -- and given the horrible fire this AM on obviously non-fireproof construction in Edgewood, I wonder if they do anything well. PS we the taxpayer pay for those privately run prisons (Support Wall Street) --- a reason to start limiting the length of time in jail (where many people work on their college degrees!)
Simple solutions rarely address the complexities of the situation.....
Everyone pays the same in taxes on goods, services -- except in NY and NJ we don't pay on clothing costing less than 100$ and most food. The super rich get senior rates on everything!! The interest rate for saving is less than 1% and there are suggestions left and right to extend prison sentences (buy prison stock?)
In the long ago 50s the top tax bracket (do people even understand or want to understand this concept) as about 95%. There was a 10% luxury tax. Europe had to rebuild = growth.
Frankly, half the time I think people don't know what they are talking about. BTW the private sector does not seem to do a great job of reasonably priced transportation -- plane tickets are awfully expensive these days -- and given the horrible fire this AM on obviously non-fireproof construction in Edgewood, I wonder if they do anything well. PS we the taxpayer pay for those privately run prisons (Support Wall Street) --- a reason to start limiting the length of time in jail (where many people work on their college degrees!)
Simple solutions rarely address the complexities of the situation.....
1
We absolutely reform and any changes that empower all people to improve their position in life is good for everyone. However providing more opportunity to average people and getting the super-rich to pay their fair share are not mutually exclusive policies. Calling the current tax code "inefficient" implies that it was created by inept government officials and hurts business as much as it hurts the average person when in fact it's the direct result of lobbyist (funded mostly by big business) inserting provisions in the code to enrich their clients.
Also after watching how Chris Christie distributed the Sandy FEMA money, I'm not crazy about giving him Medicaid dollars
Also after watching how Chris Christie distributed the Sandy FEMA money, I'm not crazy about giving him Medicaid dollars
3
Mr. Hubbard is to be cautioned when worshipping 'growth' per se.
First and foremost a balanced economy is to serve the day - to - day - needs of the people. It is too easy to bedevil 'redistribution', when millions of U. S. citizens are struggling with hostile economic circumstances. The reset of the latter is overdue.
First and foremost a balanced economy is to serve the day - to - day - needs of the people. It is too easy to bedevil 'redistribution', when millions of U. S. citizens are struggling with hostile economic circumstances. The reset of the latter is overdue.
1
Ah, yes. Making work more attractive is our problem. Americans don't want to work. We don't work hard enough. If people are poor, it must be because they're lazy. We're a country that values work, by golly! That's why we tax earned income much more heavily than unearned income! 14% is the right amount for Mitt to pay!
Then there's Medicare. It isn't working well enough. The problem is that the federal government runs it. The answer is to privatize it. Give seniors a voucher and send them out into the private health insurance marketplace. Americans love to shop. Seniors will be well equipped to duke it out with insurance companies. The private health insurance system has worked so well in the past. The way to keep health care costs down is to have private health insurance companies out there denying people's claims!
Medicaid? Well, we know that states always do a better job than the feds at running anything. Hand the whole thing over to the states. You know, like the ones that refused to expand Medicaid even though the feds offered to pay for it.
Above all, we mustn't base our thinking on "ideological talking points.". No, sir!
Then there's Medicare. It isn't working well enough. The problem is that the federal government runs it. The answer is to privatize it. Give seniors a voucher and send them out into the private health insurance marketplace. Americans love to shop. Seniors will be well equipped to duke it out with insurance companies. The private health insurance system has worked so well in the past. The way to keep health care costs down is to have private health insurance companies out there denying people's claims!
Medicaid? Well, we know that states always do a better job than the feds at running anything. Hand the whole thing over to the states. You know, like the ones that refused to expand Medicaid even though the feds offered to pay for it.
Above all, we mustn't base our thinking on "ideological talking points.". No, sir!
4
Hubbard's economic policy during the W Bush years parallels W Bush policy of squandering our troop's lives for based on a lie. No compassion here for our poor citizens and our troops.
4
Have you been unaware of the decline of the USA over decades and the myriad reasons? We have far bigger problems than Obama's or your partisan solutions address. You and he and the entire political, economic, and financial complex are so over-matched.
1
The booming economy under President Clinton when taxes were much higher and the crash caused by George Bush (and Hubbard?) with his lower taxes and profligate unfunded spending are a pretty good indicator that we should look elsewhere for advice on the economy.
2
A big part of that crash was due to Clinton's real estate/mortgage plan, which provided much larger scale access to lower income borrowers and was the foundation of the great toxic-loan crash.
Part of the crash was due to the great irresponsibility of traders swapping bad debt around - but it is a huge moral failure for the government to turn a blind eye to what it helped create: a much, much larger number of bad quality debt with a much higher default rate on mortgages.
Lets have a little perspective and economic history here.
It is very easy to villify financial markets. But any economic system, even SOCIALISM, which apperas to be the preferred method of most readers here - require individual responsibility first.
Part of the crash was due to the great irresponsibility of traders swapping bad debt around - but it is a huge moral failure for the government to turn a blind eye to what it helped create: a much, much larger number of bad quality debt with a much higher default rate on mortgages.
Lets have a little perspective and economic history here.
It is very easy to villify financial markets. But any economic system, even SOCIALISM, which apperas to be the preferred method of most readers here - require individual responsibility first.
2
My Newspaper of Record chooses to give pre-eminent space to Glenn Hubbard to offer an informed rebuttal of Obama’s state of the union proposals??? Let us not forget that this man not only served as W. Bush’s economic brain trust leader but was chosen by the clueless Romney to craft his vacuous economic “plan” as well. What did that yield either of them - or, especially, us then? And yet at this pivotal moment you waste this opportunity and space on him as well. Thanks for nothing. In the words of one of Hubbard’s most informed and insightful critics, "But the really important thing about Hubbard isn't his personality; it's that as an economist and an advisor, he is a total, unmitigated disaster."
Just one thought about economists to always remember, they and weather people are among the only professions where they can be wrong most of the time and still keep their jobs.
2
Hubbard must still be teaching "trickle-down" economics 101 at Columbia Business School. Wake up Glen. It's later than you think.
3
People believe what they want to believe. So pay attention, this is how the GOP will sell its agenda. But know this, it is mathematically impossible to keep inflation low and tax the wealthiest at a lower rate than the middle-class without the wealth concentrating upward.
That money has to come from somewhere.
That money will come from your pocketbook and your cheeking account, as it has for the last 40+ years....since Uncle Ronnie took office.
If you fall for the GOP's snow-job, you deserve to be taken to the cleaners. The rest of us would rather not be taken for a ride just because the foolish are so willing to believe this trick of smoke and mirrors.
That money has to come from somewhere.
That money will come from your pocketbook and your cheeking account, as it has for the last 40+ years....since Uncle Ronnie took office.
If you fall for the GOP's snow-job, you deserve to be taken to the cleaners. The rest of us would rather not be taken for a ride just because the foolish are so willing to believe this trick of smoke and mirrors.
1
Hubbard's audience is not public opinion or Congress. His target is the rich donors of Columbia and the numerous corporate boards he serves on (and is handsomely paid for giving rubber stamp advice), people that like to hear this kind of support for the policies that foster their affluence.
3
When will we stop defending the ultra wealthy? The problem with Conservative economic ideology is that is not based on reality (at least not the reality the majority of the country lives in). The reason why we need to continually "try" to raise the tax rates on the wealthy and corporations is that they don't pay the rate they're suppose to. The wealthy enjoy greater protections for their wealth and earnings, to the point where they're paying a lower percentage than the lower working class.
Economic geniuses like Hubbard are so focused on wealth protection that they forgot how wealth and business is generated in a consumer based economy. The problem with Hubbard's ideas is that it's based on a long gone American economic structure. In today's economy fortune 500 corporations rely on foreign consumers to reap their profits, thus granting them the ability to ignore the dwindling domestic spending power. None of their theories address issues like stagnant wages in businesses that make their money on global sales. The old Harold Ford idea where you paid workers a living wage allows them to spend money on the goods you produce no longer exists.
Also, Hubbard's use of "top wage earners" is incredibly disingenuous, the top one percent of this country stopped being "wage earners" when they entered the top 10 percent. The Walmart children resemble little of Sam Walmart, the people who built great corporations and jobs did not start out rich.
Economic geniuses like Hubbard are so focused on wealth protection that they forgot how wealth and business is generated in a consumer based economy. The problem with Hubbard's ideas is that it's based on a long gone American economic structure. In today's economy fortune 500 corporations rely on foreign consumers to reap their profits, thus granting them the ability to ignore the dwindling domestic spending power. None of their theories address issues like stagnant wages in businesses that make their money on global sales. The old Harold Ford idea where you paid workers a living wage allows them to spend money on the goods you produce no longer exists.
Also, Hubbard's use of "top wage earners" is incredibly disingenuous, the top one percent of this country stopped being "wage earners" when they entered the top 10 percent. The Walmart children resemble little of Sam Walmart, the people who built great corporations and jobs did not start out rich.
1
Has any industry that gets tax loopholes agreed to give those up in exchange for a flat tax rate? End of discussion.
"Converting Medicaid to a block grant — in which federal support would be turned over to states — would give governors the flexibility to support health insurance tax credits for low-income residents, community health centers or other experiments in health insurance and delivery at the state level."
I wonder what "experiments" a governor like Rick Scott or Le Page would come up with!
I wonder what "experiments" a governor like Rick Scott or Le Page would come up with!
1
Glenn Hubbard worked for George W Bush as an economic advisor? Well, that says it all. Thank you for the Great Recession!
This whole trickle-on ideology has been proven wrong over and over and over again. Other than some wall street bankers nobody will enjoy any economic well being under such an economic regime. What really matters is what can be done for ordinary Americans. Not for class warfare but for economic growth. Only if ordinary Americans are doing well will the overall economy do well. Putting a few more billions into the pockets of the super rich as suggested by the GOP doesn't really help anybody but the super rich who wont even realize the additional money.
This whole trickle-on ideology has been proven wrong over and over and over again. Other than some wall street bankers nobody will enjoy any economic well being under such an economic regime. What really matters is what can be done for ordinary Americans. Not for class warfare but for economic growth. Only if ordinary Americans are doing well will the overall economy do well. Putting a few more billions into the pockets of the super rich as suggested by the GOP doesn't really help anybody but the super rich who wont even realize the additional money.
2
I dont need to say a thing. Your NY Times in house Economics writer says it better than I possibly could: "The real point, of course, is that Hubbard is defending his pride and joy, the 2003 cuts in tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, which were supposedly designed to spur business investment. They didn’t — we have what amounts to a controlled experiment, because the dividend tax cut had no effect on closely held corporations, which can therefore be used as a control group. And what the comparison shows is that the tax cut didn’t boost investment or employment at all — all it did was boost payouts to shareholders.
And who were those shareholders? Glad you asked. According to the Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of the benefits from the dividend tax cut went to the top 1 percent; more than half went to individuals with incomes of more than a million dollars a year.
So who, exactly, has been waging class warfare?"
And who were those shareholders? Glad you asked. According to the Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of the benefits from the dividend tax cut went to the top 1 percent; more than half went to individuals with incomes of more than a million dollars a year.
So who, exactly, has been waging class warfare?"
113
What part of taxing the same money twice don't you understand?
I take exception to your phrase, "reward work..." I do not wish to be insulting to you, but do you know how hard middle income and low income people work? I taught in public school for 30 years and got to know probably more than a thousand families. 99% of them were incredibly hard working, and not in cushy office jobs. Some were loggers. they were on the job at dawn in temperatures from -20 below zero to sweltering humid 80' in cedar swamps. They had no health insurance in an incredibly dangerous environment.
I knew women who cleaned offices and houses. They would get up early to clean houses, gather their children after school and feed them dinner then go to clean the cushy offices. They to worked for low wages and no health insurance.
There was the mom and pop store worker (no owner) who worked a 12 hour shift 6 days a week for minimum wage and no health insurance while the kids were left in the oversight of a 78 year old grandmother.
Those are a few, but by no means the exception.
My second point is that the wealthy do not spend money creating knew jobs, they are horders. An income tax truly based on the financial ability to pay would stimulate the economy more because those people who spend the money weekly on food, repairs on their cars and houses, clothing, medicines, an a few entertainments, most can't afford cable or internet services unless it is the most basic of packages are the middle and lower economic families.
I knew women who cleaned offices and houses. They would get up early to clean houses, gather their children after school and feed them dinner then go to clean the cushy offices. They to worked for low wages and no health insurance.
There was the mom and pop store worker (no owner) who worked a 12 hour shift 6 days a week for minimum wage and no health insurance while the kids were left in the oversight of a 78 year old grandmother.
Those are a few, but by no means the exception.
My second point is that the wealthy do not spend money creating knew jobs, they are horders. An income tax truly based on the financial ability to pay would stimulate the economy more because those people who spend the money weekly on food, repairs on their cars and houses, clothing, medicines, an a few entertainments, most can't afford cable or internet services unless it is the most basic of packages are the middle and lower economic families.
1
When everyone talks about entitlements, they seem to always refer to the little bits of help low wage earners get from the government. Everyone seems to overlook the fact that high wage earners get far more in terms of tax breaks from the government that the low wage earners simply do not qualify for. This entitlement is likely to be a much higher cost to the nation than the little bits of welfare support for low wage earners. Mitt Romney getting away with paying only 14% of his income in taxes is an egregious form of entitlement. Let's fix the tax breaks at the higher end first - those making $1 million and more.
88
If being forced to give up "only 14%" of his income is an "egregious form of entitlement", what portion of Mr. Romney's income belongs to the government?
In fact, without the furious last minute adjustments to his tax returns which had become serious liabilities to his presidential campaign, Mr Romney would only have had to pay about 9% in taxes under current regulation.
2
More snakeoil from the man who gave us Bush II's tax cuts -- also known as one of the largest transfers of wealth from the bottom and middle to the top in our history. Talk about redistribution! Either Hubbard is an incompetent economist or a charlatan. That he proposes yet another round of tax cuts is hardly surprising.
4
Redistribution?
Hubbard and his fellow travelers have dedicated their lives to redistribution to the oligarchs and the demeaning of wage slaves at every turn with great success while destroying the America they grew up in where a working man could support a family and do better year by year. It would be impossible without the racists fellow travelers, but that is the price they will pay for their smug and their rents.
Hubbard and his fellow travelers have dedicated their lives to redistribution to the oligarchs and the demeaning of wage slaves at every turn with great success while destroying the America they grew up in where a working man could support a family and do better year by year. It would be impossible without the racists fellow travelers, but that is the price they will pay for their smug and their rents.
2
Mr Glen Hubbard needs to wake up, 30 years old rhetoric is not holding water.
3
OMG, this is the same trickle down and block grant stuff. Not a new or workable idea in the whole opinion. I'm sorry but any economic adviser to "W" should not be seriously listened to. Please! Dean of Columbia business school?
Are you kidding? Columbia wake up. This stuff is what? 30 or 40 years of completely tested and discredited (except for perhaps block grants which anyone knows is just a way to shift costs onto unsuspecting citizens) and President Glen thinks they are good ideas?
Are you kidding? Columbia wake up. This stuff is what? 30 or 40 years of completely tested and discredited (except for perhaps block grants which anyone knows is just a way to shift costs onto unsuspecting citizens) and President Glen thinks they are good ideas?
3
Why is there no push against income redistribution upwards? The outrage seems confined to redistribution downward.
3
Have you not been paying attention? Work doesn't need to be made more attractive. We like the idea. But work is either unavailable, or real life issues such as childcare, elder care, transportation and illness come into play. Many people on the margins can't afford to work - a nightmarish irony borne out of the sort of economics that Republicans espouse.
1
Excuse me, but the Republicans and their policies have been redistributing wealth upward for about 35 years now. Now you're going to tell us that we don't need to redistribute?
Stupidest case the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen.
Stupidest case the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever seen.
3
Mr Hubbard, How long and much can you wash this hog? It is old, lame and dirty.
You didn't even mentioned the future challenge for developed countries working class. Such as A.I based business, manufacturing and service structure will eliminate human workforce much effectively what we have seen since 1970's.
Instead you are fighting and ruminating old ideas like Capitalism vs. socialism or redistribution. Mr. Hubbard did you remember you killed socialism, last bastion of Western EU is also crippling under heavy assault of conservatism since 2010.
What redistribution you are talking about?
Future challenge for working class, no job whatsoever? Could you little bit talk about that impending doom, we would like to hear your brilliant ideas.
But please you don't need to occupy NYT columns for historical essays. this is not 1980's Thatcher England. move on god for sakes!
You didn't even mentioned the future challenge for developed countries working class. Such as A.I based business, manufacturing and service structure will eliminate human workforce much effectively what we have seen since 1970's.
Instead you are fighting and ruminating old ideas like Capitalism vs. socialism or redistribution. Mr. Hubbard did you remember you killed socialism, last bastion of Western EU is also crippling under heavy assault of conservatism since 2010.
What redistribution you are talking about?
Future challenge for working class, no job whatsoever? Could you little bit talk about that impending doom, we would like to hear your brilliant ideas.
But please you don't need to occupy NYT columns for historical essays. this is not 1980's Thatcher England. move on god for sakes!
2
Geezz, Glen, trickle down economics? Really? History has shown, time and time again, that there's only one "commodity" that flows down hill.
4
Mr. Hubbard says that "…raising marginal tax rates by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to economic expansion." In what way is this so? Looking back to the Eisenhower administration, the top marginal tax rate was over 90%. That didn't reduce asset prices or cause economic expansion to slow down.
3
Why do guys like Hubbard refuse to see that we've already had "redistribution" for 40 years? The wealth of the majority of Americans has been redistributed upward to the greedy. Without a stream to refill it, the well eventually runs dry. That's where we are now. Everybody but the rich are tapped out. Now he and his crew want to make sure the old and the sick just die.
2
Thank you for publishing an article that is much more coherent to economic reality than to politics.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
Our government is ineffective on so many levels, including on the monitoring and transparency of its finances.It wants to impose on corporations something it doesn’t impose on itself.
It is just too easy to vilify the financial system. It is a very popular way of neglecting the government’s own responsibility as a financial manager.
If you want to speculate on the results of redistribution, or inclusive capitalism, there are enough very real examples unraveling as I write this note: France, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Greece, to mention a few – these are all living proof of the dire results of redistribution.
Ethically, the philosophy behind it seems very appealing – but the results, as it has been proven over and over again, has been an accelerating destruction of the economic structure and free market basis of a country.
More responsible, all-encompassing capitalism is a great idea – except when it comes in the form of punishing the highest performers. This is, and has always been, the crux of the capitalist system – the drive behind the machine is capital, and therefore it is necessary to keep pushing it forward.
Nevertheless, we can work on a better system of wealth redistribution. My only question is the following: instead of cutting the ‘fat’ from the top – why not cut it from within?
Our government is ineffective on so many levels, including on the monitoring and transparency of its finances.It wants to impose on corporations something it doesn’t impose on itself.
It is just too easy to vilify the financial system. It is a very popular way of neglecting the government’s own responsibility as a financial manager.
1
Mr Hubbard would paint every program to "promote the general welfare" as redistribution. In this context the label is meaningless.
2
Once again I am heartened by the thoughtful, reasoned responses to this laughable opinion piece. Aside from the random trolls that still think Americans would rather be on the dole than work -- Romney's 47 percenters -- I don't need to comment on why we shouldn't be listening to this failed slow learner. Far better responses have already been written than anything I could come up with.
Honestly, as much as it pains me to see space given to hacks like this, I see that many aren't falling for it, and it brightens my day.
Honestly, as much as it pains me to see space given to hacks like this, I see that many aren't falling for it, and it brightens my day.
4
We are living on the planet of the apes and the apes have won. Instead of dealing in a world of ideas we have collectively resorted to argumentum ad hominem. Rude TV commentators, snide reporters, caustic politicians have conditioned the public to bash rather than reason. What ever happened to the adage, "Come, let us reason together" ? We as a society have become rude, nasty and close minded. Just check the responses to this thought provoking opinion piece.
1
This is a clear example of an "expert" proposing and advancing policies that have not only failed but continue to drive income inequality. I truly believe that Mr.Hubbard believes that his proposals are genuine. But his policy proposals are nothing more than a repackaging of privatization ideas that the general public does not want. As an economist and entrepreneur, I can tell you that supply-side economics disproportionately benefits those at the very top of the income scale. These policies proposals do not deserve publication on the NY Times.
5
I totally agree with the author even though I did not read the article. Stop bail out failed companies. Stop borrowing money and give it to bankers in time of crisis.
1
The author (naively?) assumes that money saved by tax reform will be re-invested by corporations. Only it didn't happen in 2005, as instead the repatriated funds were returned to shareholders in dividends or stock buybacks. The behavior of the investor (dare I say, "class"?) is for whatever buys them a bigger mansion in Costa Rica. Investment only happens in places that offer an absolute advantage, while investment in developing and deploying increased efficiency of production at home does not happen. That is, except in service enterprises where capital costs are low and offer higher rates of return in an domestic economy undergoing commodification. We NEED something radical, and not fiddling at the margins as Obama suggests.
40
Redistribution? Encouraging work? Hubbard's premice is thoroughly insulting and suggests just more of the same, out of touch Republican thinking about the economy.
Most out of work Americans can't find work. They don't need to be encouraged to work when what is available doesn't even pay a living wage. Has he not heard of all the states and municipalities raising the minimium wage? Does he not understand that when workers are paid paltry Walmart wages that IS redistribution of wealth, that is in fact exploitation of impoverished and desperate Americans struggling to hang on?
Yes, some employers are complaining that they can't find a qualified workforce but how many states and employers are actually investing in the education and training necessary to do the work. The new governor of Arizona has just proposed cutting $75 million from higher education, which of course will also include post high school vocational and community college programs we need to train those needed workers. How much more can Arizona really afford to cut from education. At 52, I've already taken on enormous new student debt just so I can better ensure remaining employed until I am in my 70s. Encourage work? I don't need encouragement, I need assurance that there will be available jobs until I am no longer physcially able to work.
Most out of work Americans can't find work. They don't need to be encouraged to work when what is available doesn't even pay a living wage. Has he not heard of all the states and municipalities raising the minimium wage? Does he not understand that when workers are paid paltry Walmart wages that IS redistribution of wealth, that is in fact exploitation of impoverished and desperate Americans struggling to hang on?
Yes, some employers are complaining that they can't find a qualified workforce but how many states and employers are actually investing in the education and training necessary to do the work. The new governor of Arizona has just proposed cutting $75 million from higher education, which of course will also include post high school vocational and community college programs we need to train those needed workers. How much more can Arizona really afford to cut from education. At 52, I've already taken on enormous new student debt just so I can better ensure remaining employed until I am in my 70s. Encourage work? I don't need encouragement, I need assurance that there will be available jobs until I am no longer physcially able to work.
95
Does anyone seriously believe anything suggested by the president will ever see the light of day? Does no one remember the night of his first inaugural, when Republicans met in private to devise a plan for his demise.
2
Just like the President's Plan, Mr. Hubbard's Plan does not address the problem that we are trying to fix, and that is it does not even estimate how much the stagnant wages will grow. The problem that we are trying to fix is that the vast majority of Americans have had no real wage growth - this is the problem. So, again, how does the Hubbard Plan fix address this problem and to what extent? How much real wage growth will the American Middle Class attain and under what time horizon under the Hubbard or Obama plan? Data please.
1
"Converting Medicaid to a block grant — in which federal support would be turned over to states — would give governors the flexibility to support health insurance tax credits for low-income residents, community health centers or other experiments in health insurance and delivery at the state level."
Oh how could that POSSIBLY go wrong? Hope you don't live in Kansas or Texas or Wisconsin or any state that happens to elect a nut case Governor.
Seriously, what you have just laid out here is a Neo-Con's dream economic plan. Slashing Social Security, basically eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, cutting corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes to sub-Reagan levels, repealing the ACA, doing away with unemployment insurance because everyone will magically have ample savings for their "re-employment accounts"...Gee, it really is shocking that this isn't the plan Obama laid out on Tuesday night. He really is a terrible Republican president.
Oh how could that POSSIBLY go wrong? Hope you don't live in Kansas or Texas or Wisconsin or any state that happens to elect a nut case Governor.
Seriously, what you have just laid out here is a Neo-Con's dream economic plan. Slashing Social Security, basically eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, cutting corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes to sub-Reagan levels, repealing the ACA, doing away with unemployment insurance because everyone will magically have ample savings for their "re-employment accounts"...Gee, it really is shocking that this isn't the plan Obama laid out on Tuesday night. He really is a terrible Republican president.
4
After reading the first handful of comments it is very evident several of those people either didn't read the editorial or perhaps shouldn't since they didn't understand it. They saw the headline in the piece and were off to their partisan races.
I'll defer on the Hubbard's corporate tax suggestions. But his specific suggestions, as related to individuals, do provide for steeper taxes for the wealthy as well as greater support for lower income people in health care, social security, and medicare. These ideas seem to me to be very much in line with what Obama is seeking but they get at it differently and in a way that simplifies the tax code.
For me the devil is in the details but if we could find a simpler, and I mean much simpler tax code for individuals. One that eliminates or reduces the number of deductions and gets much closer to a flat tax that would be a very good thing.
I'll defer on the Hubbard's corporate tax suggestions. But his specific suggestions, as related to individuals, do provide for steeper taxes for the wealthy as well as greater support for lower income people in health care, social security, and medicare. These ideas seem to me to be very much in line with what Obama is seeking but they get at it differently and in a way that simplifies the tax code.
For me the devil is in the details but if we could find a simpler, and I mean much simpler tax code for individuals. One that eliminates or reduces the number of deductions and gets much closer to a flat tax that would be a very good thing.
1
Most remember Mr. Hubbard's ideas as they were being put into action during former President Bush's terms. Personally. lowering taxes while fighting two wars remains pretty clear. How much further do we need to read?
2
Hubbard's bad ideas have been tried. They have failed. We have seen his ideas and those like them cause the deterioration of the American middle class over the past 30 years and culminate in the Great Recession of 2008, which left millions out of work and without their homes. We were bleeding tens of thousands of jobs per month when President Obama took office. It has been his policies that have enabled recovery, and all the shouting, obfuscation and false labels - "income redistribution" - in the world won't change that. His ideas work. Hubbard's ideas don't. That should be the end of the story.
It isn't, because voters still believe that, in voting for what amounts to the end of their economic opportunities, they are voting against free enterprise. That is not true. Business grows more under Democratic administrations - Clinton, Obama - but fails when the middle class declines.
The Presidents's agenda is about opportunity and growth, not obstruction. It is about basic fairness to those who form the foundation of a free society - the ordinary people who work, raise families, start small businesses and pay taxes. Hubbard's grandiose visions do not reflect the daily realities faced by those average Americans. Obama's do. That should be all that we need to know the next time that we go to the polls.
It isn't, because voters still believe that, in voting for what amounts to the end of their economic opportunities, they are voting against free enterprise. That is not true. Business grows more under Democratic administrations - Clinton, Obama - but fails when the middle class declines.
The Presidents's agenda is about opportunity and growth, not obstruction. It is about basic fairness to those who form the foundation of a free society - the ordinary people who work, raise families, start small businesses and pay taxes. Hubbard's grandiose visions do not reflect the daily realities faced by those average Americans. Obama's do. That should be all that we need to know the next time that we go to the polls.
13
Economies recover normally. Obama just wasted money on payoffs for his voters.
Obama's policies are what have been proven horrible. Example: Detroit. They've been taxing the rich to enrich the middle income (and poor) for 60 years - it looks like it was bombed out.
In fact the middle income has done wonderfully over the last 30 years. Wherever wage levels are, people are moving upward through them faster than in 1980. IRS statistics show middle incomes of actual people going up 10% a year in real terms.
What's happening today is global fairness. Those globally who work hard to get skills that are marketable are doing well. Those US citizens who are forsaking high school and college, whether substantively or actually, are falling back. And rewarding them with funds will only make them do worse more. Look at Detroit.
Obama's policies are what have been proven horrible. Example: Detroit. They've been taxing the rich to enrich the middle income (and poor) for 60 years - it looks like it was bombed out.
In fact the middle income has done wonderfully over the last 30 years. Wherever wage levels are, people are moving upward through them faster than in 1980. IRS statistics show middle incomes of actual people going up 10% a year in real terms.
What's happening today is global fairness. Those globally who work hard to get skills that are marketable are doing well. Those US citizens who are forsaking high school and college, whether substantively or actually, are falling back. And rewarding them with funds will only make them do worse more. Look at Detroit.
I think, contrary to those liberals basing their objections to Hubbard's proposals on distortions or ad hominem attacks, that his ideas deserve a considered hearing. Why does Hubbard think that piling up gov't assistance "over narrow household income ranges" would lead to high tax rates on work? I thought the President was proposing nothing of the sort, but rather mildly higher rates on income derived from other than wages. I would like to see some numbers attached, especially to his reforms in the corporate income tax. And would his forgiveness of overseas profits be coupled with some clawback of those US profits moved overseas through tax avoidance gimmicks? And why turn over medicare to private insurers? That would add many billions to the medical bill, and insert those with a self-interest in keeping medical costs high between a public seeking to reduce medical expenses and those providing medical care.
It is a good thing that Mr. Hubbard is a Dean (of Business, no less) because he surely would not qualify for tenure in an actual academic enterprise. Ahhh.. a George Bush economic guru. Clearly an expert in proposing solutions that have already been tested and failed.
2
A predictable recycling of traditional Republican themes and tired ideas intended to do nothing but reassure its base which unfortunately remains large. Sigh!
1
How many times must we be subjected to repackaged Reaganomics? I am astounded that the dean of a business school would buy into all this nonsense. But I shouldn't be, my dad was the dean of a business school and he buys it. But then he makes most of his income from capital gains taxed at half the rate I pay on earned income.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Sinclair Lewis.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Sinclair Lewis.
3
"Our unwillingness to confront mounting inefficiencies in the nation’s tax code and growing obligations in entitlement programs has led to increasingly limited options."
Our unwillingness to confront the toxic consequences of unbridled wealth concentration has led to representatives from failed prior administrations prattling on in NYTimes guest editorials.
Our unwillingness to confront the toxic consequences of unbridled wealth concentration has led to representatives from failed prior administrations prattling on in NYTimes guest editorials.
4
I'm against the redistribution of wealth. We should stop redistributing wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
7
Glenn Hubbard - the one in the Too Big to Fail documentary who, when was asked a question to uncomfortable for his thin skin, abruptly said "this interview is over"?
Glenn Hubbard, the paid advisor by special interest groups aligned with the Republicans?
Hey Glenn, what you you propose to do about the $ trillion in student debt, for starters?
Glenn Hubbard, the paid advisor by special interest groups aligned with the Republicans?
Hey Glenn, what you you propose to do about the $ trillion in student debt, for starters?
3
Glenn, you miss an important point regarding inequality. A key role of government is to redistribute wealth. How that's done is why we vote. Obama represents people who believe there is inequality in the massive transfers upwards over the last few decades. Some estimate that over a trillion dollars of wealth that used to lay in the hands of the middle and lower income levels of society now lay at the very top echelon of our society with no signs of that movement of wealth slowing down. We, as a nation, are weakened by these transfers upward. Regressive tax structures are one of the reasons we're in this situation. Limits on tax deductions for more affluent households might be a good step, but much more is needed.
We all must share the load of maintaining a civilized society. What that does not mean is that the most wealthy should enjoy relatively less financial obligation to society, or that they should be the focus of massive transfers of wealth upward. Both of which are happening at an accelerated pace due to "free market/smaller government" policies and the influence of money in our system of governance.
The gross inequality of a rigged system is toxic to the republic. This is Obama's message. Your four talking points are interesting, but do nothing to address the real issue, which is inequality and the corruption of our political process in the guise of free market policy (see Yoder's recent addition to the cromnibus for an example)
We all must share the load of maintaining a civilized society. What that does not mean is that the most wealthy should enjoy relatively less financial obligation to society, or that they should be the focus of massive transfers of wealth upward. Both of which are happening at an accelerated pace due to "free market/smaller government" policies and the influence of money in our system of governance.
The gross inequality of a rigged system is toxic to the republic. This is Obama's message. Your four talking points are interesting, but do nothing to address the real issue, which is inequality and the corruption of our political process in the guise of free market policy (see Yoder's recent addition to the cromnibus for an example)
2
I agree we need a plan based on work, not redistribution. Redistribution is only necessary because the original distribution is brutally unjust. The profits should go to the people who did the work, not the small number of very wealthy people who are "proud" they do not work, and conceal their scorn for their supporters.
3
Since 2000---the year that Glenn Hubbard's former boss, GW Bush was elected---median income in the US has been flat and the middle class has shrunk. During the same period, Canada's middle class has become wealthier than our own and median income has grown by almost 20%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no... =0.
So explain to me in layman's terms, please, exactly why we should pay attention to anything Glenn Hubbard has to say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no... =0.
So explain to me in layman's terms, please, exactly why we should pay attention to anything Glenn Hubbard has to say.
155
Hubbard's rhetoric just more supply side warmed over drivel. I am embarrassed that this man is the Dean of my Alma mater.
1
Only because we should know how illogical, idiotic, and blinded by ideology the VSPs (Very Serious People) are, particularly when they hold positions with big influence that can affect the lives of everyone, enriching the few already wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
Mr. Hubbard first decries "means-testing" (paragraph #4) and then goes on to propose means-testing SS and Medicare. Illogical case proven.
See Paul Krugman's post:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-income/
where he also shows that the Bush tax cuts (2003) did not accomplish Mr. Hubbard's goals.
Mr. Hubbard first decries "means-testing" (paragraph #4) and then goes on to propose means-testing SS and Medicare. Illogical case proven.
See Paul Krugman's post:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/for-the-love-of-capital-income/
where he also shows that the Bush tax cuts (2003) did not accomplish Mr. Hubbard's goals.
2
Amazing. Simply amazing that the author is attempting to sell these shopworn and disproven economic concepts to NYT readers. Mr Hubbard needs to find a more uninformed and distracted audience of those who haven't been paying attention for the past 35 years. These concepts have not worked in the past, will not work now, and it has been proven that they will never work, regardless of how many times they get repackaged and resold. Move on, folks; nothing to see here.
4
Mr. Hubbard, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Bush aministration, now dean of the Columbia Business School has ideas for growth. All those wonder years dedicated to hatching his four economic talking, err, ideas for growth. We have heard about this miracle potion for almost forty years. And it does not work, except, to create an economic "wasteland" where the ever increasing productivity of workers is expropriated. A wasteland where real wages do not grow, organized labor is dismantled, and our environment is criminally polluted, so we pay with diminished health and the clean up costs, to benefit those who accumulate capital. I am sure dean Hubbard has heard this before. Once upon a time people even revolted about it.
P.S.
What is it about the New Deal and Social Security that discombobulates otherwise sophisticated conservative people? The fact that it worked to reduce poverty among workers and created a middle class of Americans? Or is it the fact that, so far, they have failed to utterly dismantle it? Or is it both?
P.S.
What is it about the New Deal and Social Security that discombobulates otherwise sophisticated conservative people? The fact that it worked to reduce poverty among workers and created a middle class of Americans? Or is it the fact that, so far, they have failed to utterly dismantle it? Or is it both?
3
Why does an Ivy League Business School Dean avoid comparing the costs of American health care services with that of other OECD countries? Americans pay $1.00 in private insurance for 80 cents of health services that France, Great Britain, Japan and others pay less than 50 cents. Is simple math so difficult at Columbia or is there another reason?
Last year I qualified for Medicare and suddenly my life became much easier to live. I had many more health providers available than with my previous high quality, gold plated, HMO private insurance plan. America’s private insurance “competing plans” are unnecessary, confusing, and costly, but are very good for health professionals, insurance and drug company profit maximizers.
Last year I qualified for Medicare and suddenly my life became much easier to live. I had many more health providers available than with my previous high quality, gold plated, HMO private insurance plan. America’s private insurance “competing plans” are unnecessary, confusing, and costly, but are very good for health professionals, insurance and drug company profit maximizers.
2
Glenn Hubbard's musings are disingenuous and fly in the face of economic realities that are the American experience since the addled old felon Ronald Reagan began his frontal assault on the middle class. Apparently redistribution is fine as long as it continues upward (privatize wealth & socialize risk). Productivity has exploded since RR while wages have remained stagnant, that matrix has passed to the corporate 1% virtually untaxed or at historically low tax rates. Since Citizens United the corporate 1% has passed $$$ in unlimited amounts opaquely to the GOP in an effort to permanently legislate that inequality. That is before you even ask the question what is a tax (especially as it relates to the middle class)? In the 70's corporate taxes made up 1/3 of federal tax receipts, today @10%. During those same 70's when I went to school a year’s tuition at the UofIL was about $500. Why? Because government subsidized about 3/4 of the cost of higher education (not loans, not grants), today that contribution is less than a 1/3. The spawn of Reagan (see Hubbard) invests in capital gains, carried interest, inheritance and corporate inversions. Heck Paul Ryan just said tax cuts for the wealthy are now more imperative than ever. One result? Your kid can go to a state land grant university for $25K a year. What is a tax again? Treat capital like labor for tax purposes, increase the IRS budget and reclaim the middle class. President Obama is on the right track.
5
Don't you retirees love reading the economic musings of the folks who wiped out defined benefit pensions and reasonable interest rates on bank savings accounts?
8
It is always worth paying attention to Glenn Hubbard. One should start by seeing the documentary "Inside Job", in which he is interviewed by the film-maker. His relationship to Wall Street is, shall we say, an interesting one.
4
Not being a tax lawyer or an accountant specializing on mumbo jumbo legalese this whole plan is a serious waste of news/opinion space. There you go again with "Entitlement reform" which only means one thing: privatization. When are the conservatives going to give this up as any real option to present?
3
How can the economy continually grow? Also why does everyone need to work a 40 hour a week job? If people were paid more to begin with then we wouldn't be in this endless search for the right balance of nonsense jobs. And if people had increased social benefits from the government it would allow them to do what they wanted instead of working some mindless job that a computer could likely do.
2
'But the president’s proposals do invite a case for a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform, one based not on redistribution but on growth, work and opportunity."
Agreed.
But growth is only one side of the solution. The other is to reduce costs, that is, cut Washington in half.
Agreed.
But growth is only one side of the solution. The other is to reduce costs, that is, cut Washington in half.
1
"Redistribution" = conservative speak intended to invoke images of theft.
"Fair distribution" = living wages for the working and middle class, and not everthing to the 1 percenters.
"Fair distribution" = living wages for the working and middle class, and not everthing to the 1 percenters.
7
Reading this op-ed makes me question why this man is dean of the business school at Columbia. I always thought Columbia was a pretty darned good university, but I doubt I'd ever go to their business school if this is an example of what they teach.
5
I have wondered this for some time. I also wonder why john yoo is on the faculty at boalt hall.
1
Capitalism is dependent on population size or finding new markets. The USA has a population of about 300 million people. Europe 450 million and China 1.2 billion, or about 4 USA's. Just note that at this moment the average wage in China is 1000 dollars a month for a 60 hour work week and zero benefits. China is an example of pure capitalism with very little government regulation by their communistic handlers. There is no facebook in China to prevent possible rebellion. And there are nets strung around many factories for the regular suicide attempts jumping from the upper floors.
In the same spirit I will speak of Medicare. When it was passed the plan was it to be given to everyone by 10 year increments until the entire USA was covered. That didn't happen. That would have been the most understandable way to cover the USA population. Basically expanding Medicaid which is the cheapest health care payer in the system was an efficient approach. I consider the Patient Affordable Care Act stepping stone legislation on the road to Universal coverage that most Europeans enjoy and works quite well. So, what Obama is faced with are more bridging forms of legislation and policy as the country doesn't seem ready to take the steps needed to make the real decisions just yet.
In the same spirit I will speak of Medicare. When it was passed the plan was it to be given to everyone by 10 year increments until the entire USA was covered. That didn't happen. That would have been the most understandable way to cover the USA population. Basically expanding Medicaid which is the cheapest health care payer in the system was an efficient approach. I consider the Patient Affordable Care Act stepping stone legislation on the road to Universal coverage that most Europeans enjoy and works quite well. So, what Obama is faced with are more bridging forms of legislation and policy as the country doesn't seem ready to take the steps needed to make the real decisions just yet.
2
China is not an example of pure capitalism, China is a communist dictatorship which encourages some free enterprise but which retains control of key sectors so that it retains power including grain production, energy production, information systems, and banking. The share of the new wealth created that ends up under control of local and national Party officials is huge, as is the corruption problem. China is big and big tolerates a lot of inefficiencies in the short run.
1
Yes, sure, we could go through all manner of evolutions and convolutions to "fix" social security, medicare, etc. Or, we could remove the cap and cap SS for those with extraordinarily high post retirement income - and SS is "fixed". We could accept a crumbling infrastructure, a lack of high speed rail, an inefficient and archaic ATC system, etc., all of which are ill suited to endure the rigors of a changing climate - or we could increase the gas tax a few cents, and maybe add a very modest financial transaction fee, which would then fund the repairs we so desperately need (and maybe slow down the break-neck trading that manipulates our economy). We could tax capital gains at a slightly higher rate, we could reward companies that manufacture in the states and that pay their people a solid wage, we could increase the minimum pay. All of these things are simple, proven by history to improve our economy for everyone. All they require is to write a few lines of law, which shouldn't take 2 years of wrangling and games. But, it also requires the mindset that those who earn those phenomenal sums in the 1% should be able to contribute a bit more to the upkeep of our community. No one leader of any company has "earned" a billion dollars - they get that from the sweat of their workers and work in an infrastructure built by governments. The GOP expounds on being "Responsible" - let it mean something.
100
Does LeBron James 'earn' his salary? Does Matt Damon 'earn' his salary? Is LeBron getting paid by the infrastructure built by government?
The kind "Redistribution" the author writes about is what living in a democracy is about. We pay (most of us anyway) taxes according to our income. Everyone benefits from the projects and services that taxes finance - roads and bridges, food and airline safety and social security, the armed forces that defend and protect us and yes - the salaries of an increasingly unworthy Congress.
We must fight against the misdirected narrative that such taxation is equivalent to socialism. Under socialism, there would be no 1%. The state would fix your salary no matter how much you worked, produced or innovated and everyone would get equal benefits including healthcare and retirement support. That is not our system. Or what our system was meant to be. By letting the income disparity get far out of control, we have drifted closer to an oligarchy, with a small percentage of people holding all the power. We have little real choices about who to vote for or the terms of our home mortgage.
What the author is suggesting is that this is the system and it works - so deal with it. No thank you - we'd rather go with the plan put forward by the man we chose to lead the nation.
We must fight against the misdirected narrative that such taxation is equivalent to socialism. Under socialism, there would be no 1%. The state would fix your salary no matter how much you worked, produced or innovated and everyone would get equal benefits including healthcare and retirement support. That is not our system. Or what our system was meant to be. By letting the income disparity get far out of control, we have drifted closer to an oligarchy, with a small percentage of people holding all the power. We have little real choices about who to vote for or the terms of our home mortgage.
What the author is suggesting is that this is the system and it works - so deal with it. No thank you - we'd rather go with the plan put forward by the man we chose to lead the nation.
2
Oh, yes, and "Arbeit Macht Frei"…The game has been rigged by those at the top. No way are they going to re-balance the financial distribution of wealth without federal intervention. Their love of money corrupts absolutely.
Prof. Hubbard: Can you imagine the hopelessness of the former middle class as their downward financial spiral accelerates? Visit any Walmart, if you dare, and ask any non-management employee how financially secure they feel. It is possible the corporate world is simply incapable of choosing to plan strategically (i.e., ensuring business practices that create a financially strong middle class, which is essential for long-term market stability and profit) vs. tactically (i.e., a focus on profit maximization at any expense, including the aforesaid future market stability). They are blinded by greed.
Prof. Hubbard: Can you imagine the hopelessness of the former middle class as their downward financial spiral accelerates? Visit any Walmart, if you dare, and ask any non-management employee how financially secure they feel. It is possible the corporate world is simply incapable of choosing to plan strategically (i.e., ensuring business practices that create a financially strong middle class, which is essential for long-term market stability and profit) vs. tactically (i.e., a focus on profit maximization at any expense, including the aforesaid future market stability). They are blinded by greed.
2
The fact that Hubbard belongs to the party now running congress makes me sick. Greed may be good for his ilk but sharing is patriotism for the good of the nation.
2
Reading these comments brings to mind a quote I came across the other day: "The mind is like a parachute, it only works when fully open." How sad that the vast majority of these negative comments - not backed either by facts or any objective analysis - restrict themselves to insults based purely on partisanship!
The role of journalism is to be the watchdog of government! I thank and welcome the NY Times' decision to print what is clearly uncharacteristic of its usual Op-Ed menu.
Dean Hubbard heads the business school of one of the most prestigious and respected academic institutions in the world; he is an eminence in his field - with a wealth of experience - and has thankfully given a clear, objective, thoughtful and extremely rational assessment of the President's State of the Union message. Regardless as to whether his opinion is shared by most readers of the NY Times, he has every right to be heard. That is what differentiates a newspaper from a promotional newsletter.
The role of journalism is to be the watchdog of government! I thank and welcome the NY Times' decision to print what is clearly uncharacteristic of its usual Op-Ed menu.
Dean Hubbard heads the business school of one of the most prestigious and respected academic institutions in the world; he is an eminence in his field - with a wealth of experience - and has thankfully given a clear, objective, thoughtful and extremely rational assessment of the President's State of the Union message. Regardless as to whether his opinion is shared by most readers of the NY Times, he has every right to be heard. That is what differentiates a newspaper from a promotional newsletter.
Reforming the tax code for corporations and individuals needs to be addressed. No more loopholes especially for hedge fund managers! With that said, however, the Obama administration has done a great job at vilifying hard work and saving the fruits of one's hard work. He has created a huge schism in this country with his "everyone has a God given right" rhetoric. Why should I tell my children to work hard, live under, not just within, their means, and save for retirement when the liberals just want you to give a large percentage of your income to them because they know how to spend it better than you do! What a disincentive to work hard! Enough already. This isn't just a fiscal predicament; it's a moral one as well. We all need to pay our fair share. But the "wealth accumulation, trust fund baby, one percenters" rhetoric really needs to stop. It's not only revolting, it's divisive. And this is coming from someone who is none of the above.
The Times should be able to do better than trot out Glen Hubbard to trumpet failed ideas about economic policies. Glen has been wrong and wrong again. Why give him additional airtime?
3
Perspective is everything. Are the President's ideas "redistribution" of income and wealth, or are they simply changing the rules that we govern how income and wealth are earned.
Those with capital have had the field tilted in their direction for decades with favorable capital gains tax rates, carried interest and a myriad of complex tax shelters few of which are accessible to the fast food worker, teacher and truck driver who survive solely on their incomes alone.
Those with capital have had the field tilted in their direction for decades with favorable capital gains tax rates, carried interest and a myriad of complex tax shelters few of which are accessible to the fast food worker, teacher and truck driver who survive solely on their incomes alone.
We have had some of the best job growth, economic growth, stock market growth, corporate profit growth for many years.
The old saying is don't change the quarterback when the team is winning.
The old saying is don't change the quarterback when the team is winning.
1
So, most of the things on that list make sense, but for education: is tax breaks for continuing ed seriously all Mr. Hubbard has? What about public school funding? Or should we just cut that every few years like they do here in Texas? (Hoping it goes away?).
1
Hubbard prescribes the same tired, trite, and failed conservative policies yet again.
He must be aware that all income tax regimes are redistributive to one degree or another---the issue is that conservative tax plans redistribute wealth upward to the top one percent, and liberal tax plans redistribute wealth downward toward the middle class and the working class.
His entire op-ed is disingenuous and would only cement further the failure that is supply-side economics---the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.
He must be aware that all income tax regimes are redistributive to one degree or another---the issue is that conservative tax plans redistribute wealth upward to the top one percent, and liberal tax plans redistribute wealth downward toward the middle class and the working class.
His entire op-ed is disingenuous and would only cement further the failure that is supply-side economics---the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.
2
I'm a small Corporation. I pay 25%-35% taxes on all profits. I do not have the facilities to move off shore and pay 0% taxes. Is there something wrong with the notion that if the super wealthy can halt change in laws to their benefit, it's OK because that's "Capitalism?"
Why aren't those the first words out of everyone's mouth every time the subject of taxes is raised?
Sick and tired. I am thinking of giving in and going to work for someone else. That is what 'they' (the bigs) want, to get rid of the smaller more competitive businesses and they have rigged the system in every way crying that they don't want "Regulation." They want anything that gives them an advantage. Extremely complex laws and regulations do just that.
Why aren't those the first words out of everyone's mouth every time the subject of taxes is raised?
Sick and tired. I am thinking of giving in and going to work for someone else. That is what 'they' (the bigs) want, to get rid of the smaller more competitive businesses and they have rigged the system in every way crying that they don't want "Regulation." They want anything that gives them an advantage. Extremely complex laws and regulations do just that.
This is a tired old adage that is empirically proven not to work. The fact that we pay income and capital gains taxes at all, even at only 1%, indicates a form of an attempt at redistribution. So why not just abolish all taxes altogether? And I think each state can defend itself. So forget the military too. The problem we have now is that the income is redistributed to the already wealthy so that they become wealthier. Obviously this is not the kind of "redistribution" the author wants to prevent. So, please, enough already!
3
In other words, Mr. Hubbard, you want to double down on the failed economic ideas you and your cronies have been promoting for 40+ years so you can continue to profit from your financial coup that took over OUR government at all levels? You say, "Corporate tax reform is held hostage to the misguided idea that tax cuts and tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone..." No, that's not quite right. WE also want to tax OUR stolen taxpayer, 401K and consumer dollars back from the top 1% and their offspring. WE want to tax the Wall Street stolen wealth right back into OUR government treasury to rebuild OUR country. Your ideas may have worked for if you and your money masters count destroying democracy in America as your #1 goal.
44
Tax credits for people in poverty will likely not be used to buy health care or education....it will go for food. or rent. or shoes. And if they don't have a job, or this tax credit you speak of is indexed to their paltry income, it won't come close to covering the cost of either. Everyone who is well to do thinks that lower income folks should be saving money and paying their own way. That can't happen on the stagnated wages that have left them completely out of the so call American dream. It is expensive to be poor. You can't get credit, or if you do it's at the highest interest rates. You won't have enough money in your bank account-if you can even get one to avoid the fees that eat up your small balance. Where I would like to see the so called redistribution of wealth happen is in higher wages for all employees, for a minimum wage that increases EVERY year to livable levels, for full time jobs instead of cheating by hiring two people part time for one job to cheat them out of benefits, for corporations to pay their fair share for infrastructure and education which benefits commerce--i.e. them. It's the fact that the wealthy are now SO wealthy and the wealth gap is SO large that it is obvious they got that way by underpaying their employees and their fair share of taxes.
42
Seize the largest corporations and distribute the asset value to the poorest of the people. Go Hugo go.
2
The present system of redistribution from the poor to the wealthy seems to be exactly what the author wants. For him, it is the ideal. Along with the phony "competeing medical insurance" shell game.
7
"the faulty assumption that beneficial tax reform will not raise economic activity."
Really, Mr. Hubbard? How many jobs were created by George W. Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy? I believe he had the worst job creation record ever.
More of the same old, same old from the handmaidens of the oligarchy.
Really, Mr. Hubbard? How many jobs were created by George W. Bush's massive tax cuts for the wealthy? I believe he had the worst job creation record ever.
More of the same old, same old from the handmaidens of the oligarchy.
14
It is time to stop using the loaded term "redistribution." Strictly speaking, any form of taxation and government expenditures, whether for congressional salaries, the military, entitlements, etc., are forms of redistribution. Individuals who use this term, though, are not discussing these constitutionally enumerated powers. Rather, they are deceptively using a term that is more aptly applied to regimes that truly stripped wealth and power from some individuals for the benefits of others.
Under our system and the President's proposals, the exceptionally wealthy will remain exceptionally wealthy (but maybe, just maybe, a tiny bit less so). In return, the vast majority will see tangible improvements in their lives and the nation, as a whole could prosper. It won't happen, though, because the Party of No refuses to slightly burden those who have benefited the most of the system.
Overall, Dr. Hubbard's proposals aren't horrible. However, even this esteemed economists must admit they require "redistribution" in order to be implemented.
Under our system and the President's proposals, the exceptionally wealthy will remain exceptionally wealthy (but maybe, just maybe, a tiny bit less so). In return, the vast majority will see tangible improvements in their lives and the nation, as a whole could prosper. It won't happen, though, because the Party of No refuses to slightly burden those who have benefited the most of the system.
Overall, Dr. Hubbard's proposals aren't horrible. However, even this esteemed economists must admit they require "redistribution" in order to be implemented.
6
Glenn Hubbard @ American Enterprise Institute. What more do we need to know?
Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and others favored government assistance to the poor, but Arthur Young, Smith's contemporary, stated the foundational belief of the American Enterprise Institute clearly: "everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious.”
Hubbard writes of work and opportunity: I swear I feel I've fallen down a rabbit hole where they never heard of the Tea Party, Boehner, McConnell, the Koch Brothers or Fox. I suppose that's a short-cut to Columbia Business School--down a rabbit hole.
Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and others favored government assistance to the poor, but Arthur Young, Smith's contemporary, stated the foundational belief of the American Enterprise Institute clearly: "everyone but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious.”
Hubbard writes of work and opportunity: I swear I feel I've fallen down a rabbit hole where they never heard of the Tea Party, Boehner, McConnell, the Koch Brothers or Fox. I suppose that's a short-cut to Columbia Business School--down a rabbit hole.
15
The utter bankruptcy of hubbard's opinions are made clear by the effects of Rebublican policies that created everything that is wrong in our economy. The rich DO NOT create jobs. They hide their loot in secret off shore accounts; they invest in foreign lands where workers have starvation wages and no protections whatsoever; they shuffle their millions and billions among each other, collecting interest and tax free "deferred interest" as they attend seminars in exotic resorts, hatching yet more ways to screw the American people.
This, Mr. Hubbard, is why the pig rich are getting ever richer while real American taxpayers are getting poorer, our schools are rotting into the ground, our bridges are falling down, our natural resources are being devasted and our unregulated industries are getting away with murder.
We live in a new Gilded Age. People like Hubbard better open their eyes to the inequalities in our society or their eyes might be opened up for them through revolution. There is really only so much the people will put up with before they rise up. ...at the ballot box or in the streets.
This, Mr. Hubbard, is why the pig rich are getting ever richer while real American taxpayers are getting poorer, our schools are rotting into the ground, our bridges are falling down, our natural resources are being devasted and our unregulated industries are getting away with murder.
We live in a new Gilded Age. People like Hubbard better open their eyes to the inequalities in our society or their eyes might be opened up for them through revolution. There is really only so much the people will put up with before they rise up. ...at the ballot box or in the streets.
25
jesus. eveything to you is a caricature. yea. the rich hide their money off shore and enslave others, while they rub their hands in glee. is that what apple, google, ford, microsoft etc are doing? hiding their money? create no jobs? enslaving? jesus.
Romney's chief economic advisor returns with more of the snake-oil economics that fueled Romney's campaign: more tax cuts, privatize social security, privatize Medicaid, and of course cut the deficit by spending wildly on a massive increase in defense spending, the sort of brilliant logic that led Reagan to triple our national debt. Dear Mr. Hubbard: Romney lost. All of your predictions for doom if Obama was re-elected have been proven false. Unemployment is now lower than 6 percent, the goal that you claimed could only be reached by the end of Romney's term if he was elected. Please go away. You're making plenty of money--1200 an hour, I hear--serving as expert witness for corrupt banks. Please don't offer any more advice. Just gobble up more money.
24
if all the people who left the labor pool came bac, the unemployment rate would be 10%. the middle class has been decimated by obama- worst in decades-why do you think the democrats got destroyed in the last election? wake up.
Agreed...he should just go away.
Getting economic advice from a former economic adviser to W is a little like getting military advice from Rummy or Cheney.
36
Or Rumsfeld
the economy was pretty good during bush. the middle class didnt get decimated like it has under obama
What Glenn does not seem to realize is that even people with good jobs make little money. Only corporate execs, financial execs, and celebrities make a lot of money. Workers with good jobs in good firms make relatively little money. Why's that? it is in part lack of progressive taxation. it is also because of senior exec's compensation packages, and what is the cause of the outsized payments to those execs? It is that execs think that their relation to the firm is entirely contractual and that they should be paid whatever they can get. Execs need to think of their fiduciary responsibilities to their firms including their workers. And that means execs get less and the workers get more than is currently the case.
20
Is it possible that any rational citizen would take the words of the Chair of George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers seriously?
One can only wonder why the New York Times has chosen to use valuable space for this tired old repetition of Reaganomics.
Remember the The "Laffer Curve"? It should have been laughed out of town, but it has caused more tears than laughter for too many years since it reared its ugly head.
One can only wonder why the New York Times has chosen to use valuable space for this tired old repetition of Reaganomics.
Remember the The "Laffer Curve"? It should have been laughed out of town, but it has caused more tears than laughter for too many years since it reared its ugly head.
24
I fear that both Mr. Obama's and Mr. Hubbard's economic plans are just smoke screens. Neither will be enacted by a Congress that receives campaign donations and other perks from "special interests," which lead to subsidies or exceptions built into the tax code.
While both are useful to frame a political debate, I fear that they distract from the underlying issue that holds us back from real reform.
While both are useful to frame a political debate, I fear that they distract from the underlying issue that holds us back from real reform.
10
History shows that the ONLY way to avoid a feudal economy is what conservatives derisively refer to as redistribution. If you read Pikkety's book, he makes a solid case that over hundreds of years, economic growth has averaged about 2%, while growth of capital has averaged 5%. For that simple reason, there is a natural redistribution of income over time from earned wealth to inherited wealth. Reagan and Bush policies to cut taxes for the wealthy and cut services for the rest has resulted in a large upward distribution of wealth.
39
The real redistribution goes on everyday behind the scene; where corporations and wealthy people hire lobbyists who buy politicians to restructure tax laws in their favor. It is a beehive of activity which is out of the earshot of the public.
46
It's not enough for Mr. Hubbard to pretend he's presenting "four new ideas" when in reality all he's doing is hauling out and dressing up stale anti-entitlement arguments about "hard work." We've just seen that an economy can grow while people work hard, entitlements shrink, the middle class and poor loose wealth, and the rich get fantastically wealthy.
President Obama has always played for the long haul, and knows full well that this Congress won't enact any of his proposals. But he also knows this Congress isn't in control forever. He chose the public moment of the SOTU address to deliberately open Pandora's box and, though he didn't use the words "inclusive capitalism," that's the idea that flew out.
Now it's out there, in the public arena, in a big way, and whether Mr. Hubbard likes it or not, it will be discussed and debated over the next several months.
While Mr. Hubbard may not care, next year the wealthy will own half the world's wealth. To some of us, this is a recipe for injustice, kleptocracy and, eventually, violent revolution. Mr. Obama is right that we need higher taxes on high-income earners and large financial institutions. If this Congress won't act, a future one will.
President Obama has always played for the long haul, and knows full well that this Congress won't enact any of his proposals. But he also knows this Congress isn't in control forever. He chose the public moment of the SOTU address to deliberately open Pandora's box and, though he didn't use the words "inclusive capitalism," that's the idea that flew out.
Now it's out there, in the public arena, in a big way, and whether Mr. Hubbard likes it or not, it will be discussed and debated over the next several months.
While Mr. Hubbard may not care, next year the wealthy will own half the world's wealth. To some of us, this is a recipe for injustice, kleptocracy and, eventually, violent revolution. Mr. Obama is right that we need higher taxes on high-income earners and large financial institutions. If this Congress won't act, a future one will.
61
you dont get it. redistribution has never worked, and never will. stop trying to take money away from the rich, and focus more on education for the poor, so that they and their kids can become rich. ever notice how poor immigrants who cant speak a lick of english- the second generation is already rich. why? those kids go to school and the parents demand educational excellence. all those asians you see dominating stuyvesant and ivy leagues- they mostly come from poor, uneducated hard-working immigrant parents who drive taxis and clean laundry. education is key. but most liberals,except for cuomo, and few others, wont give charters a chance, and demand that more money be poured into the public ed system, even though we spend more per pupil than any industrialized country in the world. you want to help the poor? give the poor, who are on waiting lists for charters that run into the 5 figures, more charter schools. the public ed system is broken and dominated by a union that has no interest in reform- they want more money, no testing, no accountability. 99% of the teachers are rated satisfactory, and there's no sense of alarm there.
Wages have fallen to levels not scene since the last century and yet profits are skyrocketing to unimaginable greed. Productivity rises, taxes fall, and the workers are demonized by management. Instead of sharing profits with the workers the privileged fill their coffers with gold. There needs to be a redistribution of the profits.
Until management is forced through legislation, tax penalties or outright redistribution the inequality in America will grow until we are a nations masters and servants.
Republicans and conservatives only look at today. They refuse climate change. They refuse workers rights. American should refuse them.
Until management is forced through legislation, tax penalties or outright redistribution the inequality in America will grow until we are a nations masters and servants.
Republicans and conservatives only look at today. They refuse climate change. They refuse workers rights. American should refuse them.
136
And yet they voted them into office. Go figure.
1
A "redistribution" from _today's rules_ for distribution.
But what should be called for is "a fair and proper distribution," without the "re."
But what should be called for is "a fair and proper distribution," without the "re."
1
Nothing will have a greater impact on work and effort in the United States than to redress the imbalance in the tax treatment of earned income as compared with capital income. That is where tax reform should start.
148
I am now retired. During my working life, I assiduously saved. Like "crazy saved," hardly ever going out to dinner, making sure I put money into a 401(K). I was certainly not desperate, but I was frugal. Compound interest has enabled me to retire when others I know, who spent at a considerable rate, have had to work beyond when they wanted to, well into their seventies. Investment is good for our economy. Even President Obama knows that. When I invest, it's good for the economy, good for those seeking employment and opportunity. It is good economics to encourage and incentivize investment for all people so that the government doesn't have to care for ever greater numbers of people.
I wonder why this man couldn't put in plain English how the 40 year old Walmart employee who relies on her co-workers Christmas box is going to be helped by his plan.
Maybe its because his plan won't help.
I notice these guys never seem to imagine life in the real world. Where WalMart employees who can only afford clunkers can't get to a better job if its 20 miles away, and there isn't enough tax money for public busses. And real people have to worry about medical care for their kids, and sometimes those kids have disabilities, making it tough to grab hold of those other "opportunities," twenty miles away, that require work on Saturdays.
So let these guys be in charge of their "models," we need politicians who care about people.
Maybe its because his plan won't help.
I notice these guys never seem to imagine life in the real world. Where WalMart employees who can only afford clunkers can't get to a better job if its 20 miles away, and there isn't enough tax money for public busses. And real people have to worry about medical care for their kids, and sometimes those kids have disabilities, making it tough to grab hold of those other "opportunities," twenty miles away, that require work on Saturdays.
So let these guys be in charge of their "models," we need politicians who care about people.
48
And work on nights and weekends with erratic and/or inflexible schedules.
This is about as plain English as you can get. Unfortunately, the ability read and write does not concurrently convey the ability to comprehend.
This from the man who under Bush turned a budget surplus into the biggest deficit in the country's history. The man who agreed it was a good idea not to negotiate with drug companies for Medicare. The man who agreed Iraq, not to mention Afghanistan, would pay for themselves. This is the man who directed Bush to tell the nation to 'go shopping' after 9/11 instead of raising taxes, like the nation has done in every war since the Civil War. In the history of economics that will be one day written about these times, Bush's and Hubbard's supply side mania, will be shown to have been a major, if not the major, contributor to the Great Recession. So, no, Hubbard should not be taken seriously. Many economists would agree. Not sure why the Times gives this man the time of day.
22
The fact that this man Hubbard is dean of a prestigiuos business school goes a long way toward explaing why America, indeed the world, now has a beneration of b school graduates working to increase inequality and insure the oligarchy gets richer.
14
Thank you, New York Times, for at least this once presenting an alternative view to those usually seen in your paper. At first I thought I was hallucinating, but now maybe I'll read the opinion pieces more frequently (rather than never, as has been my practice in the past). I can't say the same for the comments, however, which seem to be pretty much true to the closed mindset of NYT readers.
6
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! My sentiment also exactly when I read this earlier. And this comment made the comments. At least there are two readers with sense. Not to say also judgement.
Never, because you already know the truth, and just want to read pieces that you agree with. Okay, then.
1
Is discounting the economic advise of someone who recently helped crash the economy "close minded"? Or is it perhaps wise, clear headed, practical?
If the man had an ounce of shame he'd shut his mouth on the economy and keep it shut.
If the man had an ounce of shame he'd shut his mouth on the economy and keep it shut.
3
Translation. (Note: ‘work’ is used as it was on Auschwitz’s sign):
“…the misguided idea that tax cuts & tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone,” Pity the poor, strapped multinational Greedy two-worker, two-child families need to step up & pay more
“Piling up child tax credits & subsidies for health care …leads to high rates of taxation on earnings from work as assistance is phased out.” In 20+ years you’ll pay more; so don’t take those cuts now
“…a simple business tax system, with a lower marginal tax rate & no special industry preferences.“ LOWER taxes on business; trust Congress to ignore their donors
“…use the individual income tax to better reward work.” Singles, ignore families’ sob stories. All of you, keep your grubby hands off our sacred unearned income
“Workers would have the choice of switching to options available under current law for employer-provided health insurance…” Undo Obamacare
“Reductions in marginal tax rates to support work would be paid for by limits on tax deductions for more affluent households.” NOT by higher tax rates. Trust Congress to ignore their donors
“Like investment in technology & machines, investment in human capital should be deductible from income.” Machines = people (machines are better) Earn enough to pay tuition, then deduct it
“…strengthen retirement security, while acknowledging the need for fiscal consolidation in entitlement spending.” The old, ill & disabled don’t work, cut them loose.
“…the misguided idea that tax cuts & tax increases must be balanced within the corporate sector alone,” Pity the poor, strapped multinational Greedy two-worker, two-child families need to step up & pay more
“Piling up child tax credits & subsidies for health care …leads to high rates of taxation on earnings from work as assistance is phased out.” In 20+ years you’ll pay more; so don’t take those cuts now
“…a simple business tax system, with a lower marginal tax rate & no special industry preferences.“ LOWER taxes on business; trust Congress to ignore their donors
“…use the individual income tax to better reward work.” Singles, ignore families’ sob stories. All of you, keep your grubby hands off our sacred unearned income
“Workers would have the choice of switching to options available under current law for employer-provided health insurance…” Undo Obamacare
“Reductions in marginal tax rates to support work would be paid for by limits on tax deductions for more affluent households.” NOT by higher tax rates. Trust Congress to ignore their donors
“Like investment in technology & machines, investment in human capital should be deductible from income.” Machines = people (machines are better) Earn enough to pay tuition, then deduct it
“…strengthen retirement security, while acknowledging the need for fiscal consolidation in entitlement spending.” The old, ill & disabled don’t work, cut them loose.
11
1. Mr. Hubbard ignores the enormous break given to the wealthy by not having to pay taxes on inherited capital gains. It's hard to see a downside there for the American economy as a whole, while the upside in fairness and additional tax revenue is huge.
2. Mr. Hubbard has probably never had to go shopping for health insurance. His suggestion that seniors choose between competing plans might make sense from the viewpoint of his ivory tower, but down on the ground it would be a nightmare. It's not even apples to apples. It's apples to every imaginable fruit and vegetable. Mr. Hubbard, pretend you're like you've been laid off and have to get your own insurance, then go shopping. After that let's hear from you.
2. Mr. Hubbard has probably never had to go shopping for health insurance. His suggestion that seniors choose between competing plans might make sense from the viewpoint of his ivory tower, but down on the ground it would be a nightmare. It's not even apples to apples. It's apples to every imaginable fruit and vegetable. Mr. Hubbard, pretend you're like you've been laid off and have to get your own insurance, then go shopping. After that let's hear from you.
12
There is also the teeny tiny problem that the free market doesn't care to insure the old and the sick. It is a losing proposition from their perspective. That is why Medicare was started in the first place. You really have to wonder about how someone as impractical and just plain disconnected from reality on the ground could be even considered as an economic advisor to actual politicians and public policy implementers.
2
Last week it was Marine Le Pen on immigration; this week it's Glenn Hubbard on economic policy. What's next--John McCain on foreign policy? Mitch McConnell on health care?
21
Thank you for a very infomative and common sense piece. The methods you describe are our best chance. Taxing has its place but can only go so far.
1
Yeah, it would be good if it went just a little farther than it has.
1
You people will say anything to avoid paying the same taxes as everybody else.
12
Obama missed a golden opportunity to challenge the republicans by channeling Regan and calling for lower marginal rates in exchange for eliminating any preference in the rate for capital gains or dividends. This could have been further enhanced by framing it as an issue of broad tax cuts in the interest of tax parity. As for business taxes, Hubbard is correct that capital investment should be expensed rather than depreciated, but dividend payments should also be treated as corporate deductions. This would encourage more companies to shift more cash to shareholders where it could be taxed at higher rates after the elimination of dividends being taxed at the preferred capital gains rate. Eliminating the step up basis for estates is an essential first step, but so would taxing as income the flows into generation skipping trust funds, and eliminating the pass on the first 5 million of inherited wealth, unless of course everyone else gets a pass on their first 5 million dollars of income. These kinds of comprehensive tax reforms over time would reduce inequality while also stimulating economic activity, raising revenue which would reduce deficits and would enable corporations to repatriate foreign profits without a big tax pass that benefits only the those at the top. The current tax system is class warfare and the republicans need to stop accusing those who seek to reform this socially and economically indefensible construct of being the ones waging it.
6
I don't want to talk about what he's doing with the US economy anymore, it's been said a lot and there's no opinion, that could fit everybody.
What confuses me, it's his manipulations with economies of other countries. The most embarrassing example is a Russia-Ukraine. Destroying Russian economy will lead Ukraine's to the worst situation it's ever been, because they're tightly bounded together. Btw, Russian economy is the 6th in the world, and if Russia will drop down, it'll drag many others with it.
I'm glad he didn't try to do something with China, can't imagine what could happen next...
What confuses me, it's his manipulations with economies of other countries. The most embarrassing example is a Russia-Ukraine. Destroying Russian economy will lead Ukraine's to the worst situation it's ever been, because they're tightly bounded together. Btw, Russian economy is the 6th in the world, and if Russia will drop down, it'll drag many others with it.
I'm glad he didn't try to do something with China, can't imagine what could happen next...
1
It seems that growth only benefits the 1% - how much do they really need?
10
so, if growth only benefits the 1% - the right thing is to avoid growing the economy?
September, 2012, Senate Republicans deliberately suppressed non-partisan Congressional Research Services (CRS) report showed lower tax rates for wealthy produced no economic growth.
"Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest" J. Weisman, NYT, 1 Nov 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawa...
The NYT article links to the full CRS report squashed by GOP Senators.
The article also reports GOP tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center declaration that Romney’s proposed 20 percent tax rate cut "protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit" was mathematically impossible.
R. Glenn Hubbard was Romney's 2012 campaign economic advisor. As Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors for George W. Bush, he helped design the Bush Tax Cuts. Results? 1) increased the deficit; 2) increased income inequality; 3) 30% of cuts to wealthiest 1%; 4) median income declined. (source: "The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts," Goldfarb, Washington Post, 2 Jan 2013)
Professor Hubbard's alternative to President Obama's "mere talking points?" More nursery rhymes. Hubbard's cupboard is bare.
"Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest" J. Weisman, NYT, 1 Nov 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawa...
The NYT article links to the full CRS report squashed by GOP Senators.
The article also reports GOP tried to discredit the private Tax Policy Center declaration that Romney’s proposed 20 percent tax rate cut "protecting the middle class and not increasing the deficit" was mathematically impossible.
R. Glenn Hubbard was Romney's 2012 campaign economic advisor. As Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors for George W. Bush, he helped design the Bush Tax Cuts. Results? 1) increased the deficit; 2) increased income inequality; 3) 30% of cuts to wealthiest 1%; 4) median income declined. (source: "The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts," Goldfarb, Washington Post, 2 Jan 2013)
Professor Hubbard's alternative to President Obama's "mere talking points?" More nursery rhymes. Hubbard's cupboard is bare.
34
More class warfare from a spokesman for the 1%. The devastation of the middle class and unions isn't enough. He wants to lock in the obscene quantity of wealth for perpetuity. It is one thing for The Times to give space to this economic babel, but how does Columbia justify teaching it to their students?
35
"Glenn Hubbard... was a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush."
Let's first take a look at the economic record of that administration before we consider the gentleman's advice, shall we?
Let's first take a look at the economic record of that administration before we consider the gentleman's advice, shall we?
26
Give the wealthy more money. Make the poor poorer and more burdened. There: I've just rendered in two sentences the stale Reaganite nostrums it took the dean of Columbia Business School hundreds of words to recycle.
Oh, and a quarter-century ago, John Kenneth Galbraith did it in one sentence:
"We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much."
Oh, and a quarter-century ago, John Kenneth Galbraith did it in one sentence:
"We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much."
24
Darn, I never knew JKG had such a sense of humor. That sentence made me laugh to beat the band. Skewer the wrongheaded rich much JKG?
If John Kenneth Galbraith was known for nothing else, it was for his exceptionally-dry sense of humor.
2
Hubbard is the economist who was outed on "Inside Job" for his defense of Countrywide loans and in general for being one of the economists who do not consistently reveal their clients when issuing reports about them. I'm not saying we should not believe what he says because he has too much skin in the game. I'm saying we should look carefully at his recommendations and determine who really would be benefited by them and what actual evidence shows (as Krugman tries to reveal to us) is the likely relation between his economic policy recommendations and their results.
In the Countrywide case, Countrywide was sued by MBIA. Hubbard testified for Countrywide which was, according to reports "sued over misrepresentations and fraud in the underwriting process that caused them to lose lots of money on securities they insured for investors. . . Hubbard apparently endorsed the view that Countrywide’s loans were of the same quality as other mortgage lenders, and thus they didn’t owe the insurer, or investors, any recompense. . . . Hubbard picked up $1,200 an hour from Countrywide. His deposition is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/116440677/MBIA-INSURANCE-CORPORATION-v-COUNTRY...
In the Countrywide case, Countrywide was sued by MBIA. Hubbard testified for Countrywide which was, according to reports "sued over misrepresentations and fraud in the underwriting process that caused them to lose lots of money on securities they insured for investors. . . Hubbard apparently endorsed the view that Countrywide’s loans were of the same quality as other mortgage lenders, and thus they didn’t owe the insurer, or investors, any recompense. . . . Hubbard picked up $1,200 an hour from Countrywide. His deposition is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/116440677/MBIA-INSURANCE-CORPORATION-v-COUNTRY...
38
Yes! I am so glad you raised this man's extremely dubious ethics and checkered past. He has no credibility whatsoever as far as I am concerned.
1
Dear Mr Hubbard,
Can you create "growth, work and opportunity" out of thin air? If not, and they have to be paid for, who will pay for them? Those who have the money, or those who don't?
If letting the rich grow richer would have solved the problem of poverty, then there should have been no poor left in the U.S. -- and in many other parts of the world by now.
Can you create "growth, work and opportunity" out of thin air? If not, and they have to be paid for, who will pay for them? Those who have the money, or those who don't?
If letting the rich grow richer would have solved the problem of poverty, then there should have been no poor left in the U.S. -- and in many other parts of the world by now.
38
The fact is that we desperately need wealth redistribution, and growth which is based upon a well paid citizen base, and not electronic signals generated by the Fed.
QE didn't bring down unemployment in the US. In the US we have had a kind of chained CPI effect where consumers scaled down to Dollar Stores from Brand name retail venues, and with the expiration of unemployment insurance, they decided to work for far less pay, at jobs which they hated. Of course in these circumstances one must take on two or three jobs. Part time work is considered employment, but it is only barely employment.
The Single Family Construction Industry has revived on paper because it is thought that the market had bottomed, but it was, I think, a false bottom driven by hedge fund purchases, and a wave of investors who followed the funds by buying distressed homes for rental and not sale to first time buyers. I don't think that the market actually cleared, but for now the bump has created some good jobs, particularly for undocumented workers. There Is still no wage pressure on the upside, and if any of this were sustainable there should be.
The fact is that QE retarded the real economy, and it did precious little to create employment. The rich just got richer......Deflation is in the cards for the economies of the West because economies are about people and not electronic signals from Central Banks, which score balance sheets and rig the game. We have had redistribution, but it was up not down.
QE didn't bring down unemployment in the US. In the US we have had a kind of chained CPI effect where consumers scaled down to Dollar Stores from Brand name retail venues, and with the expiration of unemployment insurance, they decided to work for far less pay, at jobs which they hated. Of course in these circumstances one must take on two or three jobs. Part time work is considered employment, but it is only barely employment.
The Single Family Construction Industry has revived on paper because it is thought that the market had bottomed, but it was, I think, a false bottom driven by hedge fund purchases, and a wave of investors who followed the funds by buying distressed homes for rental and not sale to first time buyers. I don't think that the market actually cleared, but for now the bump has created some good jobs, particularly for undocumented workers. There Is still no wage pressure on the upside, and if any of this were sustainable there should be.
The fact is that QE retarded the real economy, and it did precious little to create employment. The rich just got richer......Deflation is in the cards for the economies of the West because economies are about people and not electronic signals from Central Banks, which score balance sheets and rig the game. We have had redistribution, but it was up not down.
50
If nothing else, QE is among the reasons we don't find ourselves entering the Japanese-style deflationary trap that Europe is now falling into. That's a good thing regardless of its failure to create anything like widespread employment and, in the long run, represents a net win for the economy.
Would it have been preferable to have an adequate fiscal stimulus instead? Absolutely, but QE could be done without the approval of a chronically intransigent congress, so that's what we are left with. It was certainly better than nothing.
Would it have been preferable to have an adequate fiscal stimulus instead? Absolutely, but QE could be done without the approval of a chronically intransigent congress, so that's what we are left with. It was certainly better than nothing.
A lot of what you claim is simply not true, as shown in this article from Oxford University economics professor, John Muelbauer published by VOX:
http://www.voxeu.org/article/combatting-eurozone-deflation-qe-people
His article does indicate that QE, at least as implemented in the U.S., will not work as well in Europe and he presents good arguments.
http://www.voxeu.org/article/combatting-eurozone-deflation-qe-people
His article does indicate that QE, at least as implemented in the U.S., will not work as well in Europe and he presents good arguments.
1
Dr. Hubbard is just another stony-faced conservative bent on maintaining the status quo, albeit with a craftier approach than the final "no" uttered by Republican politicians.
President Obama has proposed several specific, practical ways to help a large number of working Americans share in the general prosperity which their labor, as well as the capital investment of the rich, has created. A livable minimum wage, help with child care, affordable health coverage, and expanded opportunities for education are not complicated, radical concepts that require years of debate and complicated legislation to implement.
Dr. Hubbard seeks to subvert the simple and immediate by proposing the radical and devious. His 4-step "plan" incorporates all the Republican hot points: give Big Business and the 1% another tax break, give useless tax breaks to those who earn too little to to pay taxes, sabotage Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare, and create prosperity by engorging those mythical "job creators" who invest in American industry and commerce, without regard to consumer demand, and return on investment.
President Obama has proposed several specific, practical ways to help a large number of working Americans share in the general prosperity which their labor, as well as the capital investment of the rich, has created. A livable minimum wage, help with child care, affordable health coverage, and expanded opportunities for education are not complicated, radical concepts that require years of debate and complicated legislation to implement.
Dr. Hubbard seeks to subvert the simple and immediate by proposing the radical and devious. His 4-step "plan" incorporates all the Republican hot points: give Big Business and the 1% another tax break, give useless tax breaks to those who earn too little to to pay taxes, sabotage Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare, and create prosperity by engorging those mythical "job creators" who invest in American industry and commerce, without regard to consumer demand, and return on investment.
3
The only way one can come to the conclusion that the tax cuts and distribution to the top 10% of an ever greater share of the worlds wealth since Regan has been economically successful, is for one to have benefited from this wealth while being in denial of its overall impact. That requires a certain degree of egotism and callousness also. Mr Hubbard seems to fit nicely into this category.
2
You can't talk about taxing the super rich, because the republicans get all bend out of shape. Education is the key to the nation's future, higher education, at the end, generate good future tax payers. Everybody wins. The GI bill proved that this strategy works.
You can't compare the post-war period of economic growth to today and base it on the GI bill. That is simply logical and factual nonsense. There are a myriad of factors that allowed for US growth. Remember, China was closed off, Germany in ruins, and we actually made things.
"Narrow household income ranges"? True, the middle class has been shrinking, but it's still far from being a narrow income range and tax cuts for millions of American would help expand the middle class.
As for Dr. Hubbard's premise, there is no comparison when considering whether to lower taxes for the main body of individual taxpayers or to lower them for businesses. Lower taxes for people who live and work in the United States will result in higher consumer spending in the United States. Higher demand then supports jobs tied to getting products in stores and selling them the Americans.
Cutting business taxes does not ineluctably lead to more investment and jobs in the United States since businesses can choose to spend the added income wherever their interests lie. The money can go into foreign expansion or even things like stock buybacks or executive bonuses.
In terms of Americans getting a bang for their buck, placing money in the hands of American consumers is more efficient with more reliable results than placing it in the hands of businesses.
Ultimately, Dr. Hubbard simply poses a false choice in suggesting that income redistribution is somehow unrelated to "growth, work and opportunity". The latter are a function of demand, pure and simple. As demand rises, the economy grows resulting in more jobs and higher wages that open up new horizons of opportunity. And demand is a function of income, especially among the lower 90% of taxpayers.
As for Dr. Hubbard's premise, there is no comparison when considering whether to lower taxes for the main body of individual taxpayers or to lower them for businesses. Lower taxes for people who live and work in the United States will result in higher consumer spending in the United States. Higher demand then supports jobs tied to getting products in stores and selling them the Americans.
Cutting business taxes does not ineluctably lead to more investment and jobs in the United States since businesses can choose to spend the added income wherever their interests lie. The money can go into foreign expansion or even things like stock buybacks or executive bonuses.
In terms of Americans getting a bang for their buck, placing money in the hands of American consumers is more efficient with more reliable results than placing it in the hands of businesses.
Ultimately, Dr. Hubbard simply poses a false choice in suggesting that income redistribution is somehow unrelated to "growth, work and opportunity". The latter are a function of demand, pure and simple. As demand rises, the economy grows resulting in more jobs and higher wages that open up new horizons of opportunity. And demand is a function of income, especially among the lower 90% of taxpayers.
Two things seem to have not occurred to this author. First, the proposals made by Obama are not about redistribution of “wealth.” They are about growth. Second, the Republican agenda violates Christian ethics. Don’t ask me for clarification on that. Ask the Pope.
5
A lot of us couldn't care less about Christian ethics. We know that we earned our wealth and WON'T STAND to have it redistributed away.
1
This is great!
Privatize Social Security, end Obamacare, go back to lower taxes for the 0.1%, no more free education, the works.
I love this guy: He doesn´t want to close down Veteran´s Hospitals.
Just not yet.
Privatize Social Security, end Obamacare, go back to lower taxes for the 0.1%, no more free education, the works.
I love this guy: He doesn´t want to close down Veteran´s Hospitals.
Just not yet.
3
How old is Mr. Hubbard? Has he ever heard of Dwight Eisenhower or Bill Clinton?
2
Despite Dr. Hubbard's role as President Bush's chief economic advisor, I will readily admit that there are a few decent ideas in here. Expanding the EITC and making educational expenses deductible aren't bad ideas and raising the floor on Social Security benefits isn't a bad idea either. There are a few more in there as well.
What is unfortunate is that Dr. Hubbard fails to recognize that a few of the President's ideas also have merit, but he gets right the sad truth that the President has no chance of engaging the Republicans. With such a broad dismissal of the President's proposals as mere talking points, is it any wonder the President cannot engage with the GOP? It is a self-fulfilling prophecy filled with circular logic.
The difference between the GOP and the rest of the political spectrum is thus neatly summed up in this op-ed. I'd be willing to sit down with Dr. Hubbard to discuss those ideas of his that strike me as having merit and even those that don't; an open mind is a sign of an evolving intellect rather than a weakness. I doubt he'd extend to me the same courtesy, because my generally, but by no means always, left of center ideas would likely be dismissed out of hand. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to buy him lunch the next time I'm in NYC or he's in DC. The NYT has my permission to give Dr. Hubbard my email address if he chooses to prove me wrong.
What is unfortunate is that Dr. Hubbard fails to recognize that a few of the President's ideas also have merit, but he gets right the sad truth that the President has no chance of engaging the Republicans. With such a broad dismissal of the President's proposals as mere talking points, is it any wonder the President cannot engage with the GOP? It is a self-fulfilling prophecy filled with circular logic.
The difference between the GOP and the rest of the political spectrum is thus neatly summed up in this op-ed. I'd be willing to sit down with Dr. Hubbard to discuss those ideas of his that strike me as having merit and even those that don't; an open mind is a sign of an evolving intellect rather than a weakness. I doubt he'd extend to me the same courtesy, because my generally, but by no means always, left of center ideas would likely be dismissed out of hand. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to buy him lunch the next time I'm in NYC or he's in DC. The NYT has my permission to give Dr. Hubbard my email address if he chooses to prove me wrong.
1
Funny -- it wasn't "redistribution" when benefits were redirected to the 1%.
This appears to be a repetition of the Republican tactic of using a stigmatized word (e.g., terrorism, Islamic, etc.) when they can't come up with a rational reason for rejecting a policy.
The party of bad ideas has become the party of bad words.
This appears to be a repetition of the Republican tactic of using a stigmatized word (e.g., terrorism, Islamic, etc.) when they can't come up with a rational reason for rejecting a policy.
The party of bad ideas has become the party of bad words.
7
So when the working class get a break it is redistribution of wealth.
They have been redistributing wealth to a chosen few for decades.It is time we take it back.
Wages or taxes you pick
They have been redistributing wealth to a chosen few for decades.It is time we take it back.
Wages or taxes you pick
5
We haven't seen decades of "redistribution." We've seen decades of the wealthy EARNING their wealthy and doing well, not taking it from the poor.
1
surprise surprise, a republican who doesn't approve of the presidents suggestions. Mr Hubbard you're surely an academic when you suggest that anything Mr Obama recommends would be given any serious consideration from the right. YOU all don't approve of even those ideas originally conjured by your own wolf pack. It is shameful
4
Who is this person? Where did they come from? Oh. Bush 43 Economic advisor from 2001 to 2003. The way I remember it late 2003 is when a lot of smarts started wondering exactly where Bush 43 was trying to steer the country's economic rudder, and balance sheet. Lets compare the balance sheet from the OBAMA-GEITHNER period of leadership to the BUSH-HUBBARD period of leadership. Enough said. No need to go into the pros and cons of that is postulated in this op ed.
3
"Personal re-employment accounts could be made available to all individuals facing more than temporary unemployment, with individual financial support for training and a bonus for re-employment."
I can't make any sense whatever out of the proposal quoted above. What can Hubbard possibly mean by this? It seems obvious that someone who is unemployed and expects to be so for a long time, has new use for a tax advantaged savings account that he/she has no surplus cash to invest in.
Or, is Mr. Hubbard proposing that people self select themselves as "facing more than temporary unemployment" and thus get access to a taxpayer subsidized savings account that they do not need?
Honestly, given his long track record of advocating incomprehensible and dangerous nonsense, I don't know why anyone would listen for a second to anything Mr. Hubbard has to say about economic policy.
I can't make any sense whatever out of the proposal quoted above. What can Hubbard possibly mean by this? It seems obvious that someone who is unemployed and expects to be so for a long time, has new use for a tax advantaged savings account that he/she has no surplus cash to invest in.
Or, is Mr. Hubbard proposing that people self select themselves as "facing more than temporary unemployment" and thus get access to a taxpayer subsidized savings account that they do not need?
Honestly, given his long track record of advocating incomprehensible and dangerous nonsense, I don't know why anyone would listen for a second to anything Mr. Hubbard has to say about economic policy.
11
I understand your confusion M. Anders. I think he's saying that we should eliminate state run unemployment insurance. We could then replace it with bull#*@
2
There is a lot to critique in this opinion piece but I cannot help but comment that Mr Hubbard dismisses the Obama economic proposals out of hand, without any data or reasoning just by using the conservative buzzword "redistribution". He and other conservatives must realize that the data clearly show that we have just experienced a generation of "redistribution" to the great benefit of the wealthy and no, the rising tide did not raise all boats!
18
We haven't seen a generation of "redistribution." We've seen a generation of the wealthy EARNING their wealthy and doing well, not taking it from the poor.
1
Yes, thank you for a good summary; the redistribution has gone "up."
… The great mass of the population is of labourers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth. Most of the labouring class possess property, cultivate their own lands, have families, and from the demand for their labor are enabled to exact from the rich and the competent such prices as enable them to be fed abundantly, clothed above mere decency, to labor moderately and raise their families … The wealthy, on the other hand, and those at their ease, know nothing of what the Europeans call luxury. They have only somewhat more of the comforts and decencies of life than those who furnish them. Can any condition of society be more desirable than this? Thom Jefferson.
Bill Clinton and Larry Summers can be seen raving about capitalism's "winners and losers" last year at a London Conference on "Inclusive Capitalism." Summers, in particular, was screaming that capitalism had to accept this winners and losers concept.
They miss the point: As above in Jefferson's statement, we do not need the upper 10% owning practically 90% of everything. The Redistribution must go down. The "masses" pay for the system the capitalists use to make their money---the transportation systems, the courts, the educational system, etc. They owe us.
See Jeffersons statement
… The great mass of the population is of labourers; our rich, who can live without labor, either manual or professional, being few, and of moderate wealth. Most of the labouring class possess property, cultivate their own lands, have families, and from the demand for their labor are enabled to exact from the rich and the competent such prices as enable them to be fed abundantly, clothed above mere decency, to labor moderately and raise their families … The wealthy, on the other hand, and those at their ease, know nothing of what the Europeans call luxury. They have only somewhat more of the comforts and decencies of life than those who furnish them. Can any condition of society be more desirable than this? Thom Jefferson.
Bill Clinton and Larry Summers can be seen raving about capitalism's "winners and losers" last year at a London Conference on "Inclusive Capitalism." Summers, in particular, was screaming that capitalism had to accept this winners and losers concept.
They miss the point: As above in Jefferson's statement, we do not need the upper 10% owning practically 90% of everything. The Redistribution must go down. The "masses" pay for the system the capitalists use to make their money---the transportation systems, the courts, the educational system, etc. They owe us.
See Jeffersons statement
Mr. Hubbard has some good ideas but I think he misses the boa when he talks about better reward for labor. The question is "better relative to what". If it is merely better relative to what we are doing today we are likely to see the equality gap grow.
I think we should all agree that it is reasonable for all income regardless of the source to be taxed at the same rate. A progressive scale is fine, but if you make $40,000 from working as a teacher, you should not be taxed at a higher rate than an individual who is earning $40,000 in capital gains.
Also, to simply things just a bit more, let's all agree that any income is income, regardless of its source. Again, if you inherit $40,000 from someone, you should pay taxes on that income at the same rate as a coal miner making $40,0000.
It's just fair.
I think we should all agree that it is reasonable for all income regardless of the source to be taxed at the same rate. A progressive scale is fine, but if you make $40,000 from working as a teacher, you should not be taxed at a higher rate than an individual who is earning $40,000 in capital gains.
Also, to simply things just a bit more, let's all agree that any income is income, regardless of its source. Again, if you inherit $40,000 from someone, you should pay taxes on that income at the same rate as a coal miner making $40,0000.
It's just fair.
6
inheritance has already been taxed by the individual who left the money. when does taking money from one to give to others get to be enough, never I guess based on the culture that has been born through the class warfare generated by this President. tax codes should be fixed to stop the very wealthy to take advantage of loopholes that our politicians leave (both dems and repubs)
It's absurd to argue that wealth passed down from a lifetime of work should be treated the same as income earned in single year, and hopefully you know that. Parents should have an absolute right to pass their wealth to their kids tax free. It's their money and it's already been taxed (although I would maintain the original basis for capital gains purposes).
1
I pay sales taxes with money that has already been taxed.
I pay real estate taxes with money that has already been taxed.
My grocer pays income taxes on the money I spend with him, which has already been taxed at the time I earned it and again with the sales taxes paid at the point of purchase.
So-called "double taxation" is rampant, and the norm. Perversely, you only exempt people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it from its effects.
I pay real estate taxes with money that has already been taxed.
My grocer pays income taxes on the money I spend with him, which has already been taxed at the time I earned it and again with the sales taxes paid at the point of purchase.
So-called "double taxation" is rampant, and the norm. Perversely, you only exempt people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it from its effects.
2
Income redistribution is not the road to economic growth it is the road to getting more votes to maintain or acquire power because the people on the receiving end outnumber the people from whom the money is taken.
5
And yet somehow the money that the superrich have is orders of magnitude greater than the amount that they're outnumbered by everyone else.
The same old same old, all based on the magical thinking of the Austrian School and good old fashioned "bait and switch" greed. Predictable and tiresome.
23
"His ideas ... failed to go beyond mere talking points. With no chance of engaging the Republicans" and with the latter point therein lies a significant part of the problem.
Why no chance of *engaging* the Republicans - not ANY, not at all, nada, not even perhaps a few ...? Are Republicans -ALL Repubilcans - so rigid in their ideology that negotiation and compromise are out of the question? (rhetorical question, they have repeatedly they are).
Why no chance of *engaging* the Republicans - not ANY, not at all, nada, not even perhaps a few ...? Are Republicans -ALL Repubilcans - so rigid in their ideology that negotiation and compromise are out of the question? (rhetorical question, they have repeatedly they are).
16
We have a system based on redistribution - it redistributes up.
1
I agree with the majority of the comments in this column that point out the errors in Mr. Hubbard's misguided statements. NY Times readers are educated and aware enough to understand the hypocrisy of these Republican proposals.
Most citizens are not aware. That's why we have a Republican-controlled Congress.
What these writers need to do - quickly and often! - is to make their families, friends, and neighbors aware of these distortions. Most middle- and low-income, die-hard Republicans don't know how destructive the Republicans' plans are for the average worker, young person, and senior citizen.
Talk about these wrong-headed ideas to everyone. Raise doubts about Republican policies. Describe in SIMPLE terms how history has not shown the Republicans to be correct or helpful to the average person.
Reading and griping to each other in the NY Times will not protect us.
Most citizens are not aware. That's why we have a Republican-controlled Congress.
What these writers need to do - quickly and often! - is to make their families, friends, and neighbors aware of these distortions. Most middle- and low-income, die-hard Republicans don't know how destructive the Republicans' plans are for the average worker, young person, and senior citizen.
Talk about these wrong-headed ideas to everyone. Raise doubts about Republican policies. Describe in SIMPLE terms how history has not shown the Republicans to be correct or helpful to the average person.
Reading and griping to each other in the NY Times will not protect us.
3
If lowering taxes on the rich actually worked to stimulate the economy we would be living in an economic paradise right now. We aren't.
I agree with the proposals to move to a simpler business tax at lower rates with few deductions and special exceptions and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income. I also believe that we should remove the cap on Social Security taxes and put a cap on Social Security payouts for the very wealthy. A flatter tax system could be fair if large enough standard deductions were allowed for low and middle income workers along with a surtax on very high earners.
We should expand Medicare to all. I'm not opposed to letting those who can afford it purchase some sort of private Medigap type insurance if they can afford it but putting our lives in the hands of the insurance companies has not worked. That would involve a rise in taxes for all because every one would share in the benefits.
I agree with the proposals to move to a simpler business tax at lower rates with few deductions and special exceptions and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income. I also believe that we should remove the cap on Social Security taxes and put a cap on Social Security payouts for the very wealthy. A flatter tax system could be fair if large enough standard deductions were allowed for low and middle income workers along with a surtax on very high earners.
We should expand Medicare to all. I'm not opposed to letting those who can afford it purchase some sort of private Medigap type insurance if they can afford it but putting our lives in the hands of the insurance companies has not worked. That would involve a rise in taxes for all because every one would share in the benefits.
3
The worst of Mr. Obama's ideas, which received no mention in his address, is subjecting 529 college savings plan gains to federal taxation. This only serves to punish years of careful planning and saving in order to fund free tuition at community colleges. If the government reneges on this promise, I would start to worry if I had a Roth IRA!
5
The professor might want to take a walk from 116th Street up to 125th more often. And then spend some time in western New York which became the Appalachia of the North under the Republicans, most recently under Romney's brutal run on Buffalo. Speaking of Romney, what about those Cayman Island holdings? Inquiring minds would like to know and to tax those.
3
He is a Dean at Columbia? He is I believe the man who pushed for tax cuts in the Bush administration in 2003 while we were fighting a war in Afghanistan and preparing for (or started) a war in Iraq. Now to propose tax cuts with two wars on could only lead to the dismal failure of the economy it did. It left us naked to deal with the unregulated financial sector breakdown in 2008. I think the Times should seek people with a successful track record to give their opinions as experts.
7
I would love for Mr. Hubbard to explain why corporations need a handout in the form of further tax cuts. What makes him think that the big corporations won't just pay even *less* than they already do in taxes, while continuing to pay their workers exactly the same amount? That's what's happened for decades: all of their profits are returned to wealthy shareholders. All this "trickle down" voodoo stuff is stale and everyone with an IQ above room temperature sees how the system works to benefit the rich and screw the rest of us.
2
Since when does cutting taxes promote work? In the real world having more money means having to work less. This has always been the little lie to justify giving rich people tax cuts.
The other bad assumption in this article is that "promoting growth" leads to higher wages across the board. In fact, the gains made in productivity growth have all gone to the top .1%. We work harder faster better and don't make any more money.
We have seen that with 30 years of cutting taxes on the rich and loosening regulations does not help the lower and middle classes. The only thing that helps is raising the taxes on the rich and promoting policies like minimum wage increases that help the lower classes. That's the real engine for growth. How does the $250 million Mitt Romney has stored in the Cayman Islands help anyone?
The other bad assumption in this article is that "promoting growth" leads to higher wages across the board. In fact, the gains made in productivity growth have all gone to the top .1%. We work harder faster better and don't make any more money.
We have seen that with 30 years of cutting taxes on the rich and loosening regulations does not help the lower and middle classes. The only thing that helps is raising the taxes on the rich and promoting policies like minimum wage increases that help the lower classes. That's the real engine for growth. How does the $250 million Mitt Romney has stored in the Cayman Islands help anyone?
4
I wish the Romneys lived with their money in the Caymans.
And another Republican gives us a politely worded column as to why the already insanely rich deserve more money while the middle and lower classes deserve nothing but crumbs.
Nothing new to see here. We've been hearing this for over 35 years now and not one thing mentioned works- except to make things worse.
I'm still waiting for the conservative who finally admits that trickle down, supply-side, voo-doo economics is a failure and should be tossed onto the trash heap of history.
Looks like I'll have a long wait.
Nothing new to see here. We've been hearing this for over 35 years now and not one thing mentioned works- except to make things worse.
I'm still waiting for the conservative who finally admits that trickle down, supply-side, voo-doo economics is a failure and should be tossed onto the trash heap of history.
Looks like I'll have a long wait.
10
Glenn, By using terminology such as redistribution, you distract everyone's attention from the core issue that there needs to be a fairer system to tax income (higher earners should pay more) and reward work (minimum wage) . We also as a society need to invest in our youth and provide them a good way to earn a living and to good health care , so that the wealthy will have a good labour pool to make their investments in business payoff. So why is such simple economic reasoning called "redistribution"?
3
When famous economists offer proposals 180 degrees opposite to one another (cf. Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz) , one of two things must be true. Either the foundations of the subject of economics are so weak that any predictions it makes come with enormous uncertainties, making the predictions little more than guesses. Maybe not totally random guesses, but close. Or, what is presented as the result of a dispassionate analysis is really a political opinion, laden with all the prejudices that that implies.
It is my (prejudice laden) opinion that both things are true. And because of that I am led to pay close attention to the writer's political affiliations. This particular writer was an uberhoncho in the reign of Bush II. We all know how the economy ended up performing back then. There is no reason to take this man seriously, and anything he says should just be laughed out of court.
It is my (prejudice laden) opinion that both things are true. And because of that I am led to pay close attention to the writer's political affiliations. This particular writer was an uberhoncho in the reign of Bush II. We all know how the economy ended up performing back then. There is no reason to take this man seriously, and anything he says should just be laughed out of court.
12
When the Republicans redistribute wealth, it is god's work. When the Democrats do it, it is work of the devil.
10
I agree the writer. Economic growth is more important than the redistribution of wealth. Especially the redistribution of wealth to people who do nothing to achieve wealth. In order for the redistribution for wealth to work as a mechanisms for equality is totalitarianism. The application of Marxism in the previous century resulted in harsh totalitarian regimes, as in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia. In each of these regimes equality had to be enforced; property was seized; the elite "reeducated," or outright eliminated. America will not, hopefully, follow such a cruel path toward economic equality, instead it will use its system of entitlements and taxes to achieve its goals. The President's proposal to tax accounts used by families to save for their children's college is a perfect example. According to an NPR report yesterday, he has proposed to tax those accounts to pay for all students to receive two free years of community college education. Most of the people who use such accounts are hard working people who do not have the advantage of inherited wealth to pay for their children's education. True income/wealth distribution would be to seize the assets of the elite and divide it evenly among the populace. That would be true equality. And if the elite objected, then deal with them appropriately. Now that's equality.
2
Where do you find these guys? Our country is OWNED and operated by corporations. Corporations should be taxed at a higher rate than individuals who work for a living. Invested income should be taxed at the same rate as people working for their money. Every trade on Wall Street should be taxed. Social security should be deducted proportionally for those who make higher wages and not capped. We should absolutely go back to the tax rates for individuals that were in place under Ike in the fifties. We should de-privatize the running of jails, military contractors, spies, and many other operations that were once secure government jobs that paid a living, union, wage. People who inherit over 3 million dollars should have to pay a high tax rate on that. The enemies of the American people are Wall Street, the fossil fuel corporations and the war machine. Go back and read the speeches of DDE (Ike). This is an editorial from one of our owners. THIS is the enemy folks...
16
Oops... I must be on the wrong page. I was looking for "Obama's Bad Economic Ideas" but instead found this article on Glen Hubbard's bad economic ideas.
26
Privatizing medicare; privatizing social security; cutting taxes on the income of the wealthy. What's new here?
We know full well that the wealthy among us wish to grow even more wealthy. They lust for it. Crave it, and all the wonders on earth that wealth brings them. So what.
Until voters say, "Screw the wealthy!", we will be stuck reading these considered opinions written by educated toady's of the wealthy, who just need to tell us that government could do more to help rich folks gain more and more and more.
I think its a moral sickness that drives them; a perversion of their sense of humanity. That's what I think.
We know full well that the wealthy among us wish to grow even more wealthy. They lust for it. Crave it, and all the wonders on earth that wealth brings them. So what.
Until voters say, "Screw the wealthy!", we will be stuck reading these considered opinions written by educated toady's of the wealthy, who just need to tell us that government could do more to help rich folks gain more and more and more.
I think its a moral sickness that drives them; a perversion of their sense of humanity. That's what I think.
12
Bingo.
At least we should warn them of the judgment to come. The Bible does:
"Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?"
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days."
"Indeed, the wages of the laborers... which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers [workers] have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter."
At least we should warn them of the judgment to come. The Bible does:
"Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called?"
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days."
"Indeed, the wages of the laborers... which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers [workers] have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter."
3
Patrick, The Buddhists might put it this way: The cause of suffering is attachment to desire, an unquenchable feverish thirst. You put it well.
2
Hubbard fails to realize that economic growth needs a driving engine. The principal drive in the past has been population growth, augmented half a century ago by the switch from consumer cash to consumer credit. Both of these are running out of steam: population is stabilizing and the concern of credit now is to reduce existing debt rather than to generate new debt.
So the image of economic well-being coming from all sharing unequally from an increasing pie needs to be replaced by one of a more equitable sharing of the pie we have got. That means the redistribution of wealth by increased taxation of the rich.
So the image of economic well-being coming from all sharing unequally from an increasing pie needs to be replaced by one of a more equitable sharing of the pie we have got. That means the redistribution of wealth by increased taxation of the rich.
6
No, we do need redistribution.
4
Haven't we been doing it this guy's way for the last 35 years? Well let's do it some more, I guess.
3
I have a request for the Times Editors:
Before printing yet another regurgitation of failed ideas, why not make Mr. Hubbard write an essay or two explaining why he thinks we should prefer his ideas to those that have proven, time and again, to work better?
After Mr. Hubbard satisfactorily explains why his ideas haven't worked as well as others' ideas in the past, then he can criticize. Until then, he should continue to be ignored.
Before printing yet another regurgitation of failed ideas, why not make Mr. Hubbard write an essay or two explaining why he thinks we should prefer his ideas to those that have proven, time and again, to work better?
After Mr. Hubbard satisfactorily explains why his ideas haven't worked as well as others' ideas in the past, then he can criticize. Until then, he should continue to be ignored.
28
Hubbard was chairman of the council of Economic Advisers during the Bush administration that presided the greatest economic crash since the 30's. He's a known proponent of supply side economic remedies and the EMH which inevitably increase inequality. These facts need to be borne in mind when considering any proposals he may make to improve the lot of the American middle classes.
115
Considering that his major goal is keeping the rich rich, these ideas are not totally absurd. What we really need is a new Congress, not attuned to opposing every idea coming from the White House, along with a better appreciation of how skewed the financial picture in the US has become, thanks to lobbyists, Supreme Court decisions and Congressional blockheads.
2
Now he sits at the top of the academic pyramid to decree the Truth to all us little putzes on the street.
2
Mr. Obama's plans are designed to discourage savings. Take his plan to tax college 529 plans. This will discourage middle income families ($50.000 -$150,000 in a major urban area) from saving for college. What does that do - just takes their money and gives it to the government to dole out for benefits. Why work? As we can see, poor people aren't stupid. The benefits they get from being poor have such a steep marginal tax as they climb up the ladder that they don't see why a job makes much sense at the lower end of the income scale.
8
Right. Being poor is so great it's amazing that everyone doesn't do it.
2
Monetary policy has cut off basic thrift at its roots. The lack of any kind of cushion in savings has the working poor in bondage to loan sharks.
1
It is so very difficult being rich, right? Are you serious? With this marginal tax reasoning, if I was smart I should shun wage increases and ask my employer for a pay cut, only to enjoy "The benefits [they get] from being poor..?" Think about that.. "the benefits of being poor".
1
It's tempting to be insulting but I will settle for reasoning. Why do you think this will still work after all of these years when it hasn't? What we really need is a change in energy source. Every empire in the history of the world was built on a commodity like whale oil, tulips, wood, coal, oil or gold. When there is too much or not enough things fail. Right now, we have too much oil while the rest of the world is making a mad dash for renewables and oil companies reposition themselves to gobble each other up. Americans have not seemed to get the news about this because oil and gas still run us. Corporations still run us. They run the world through trade treaties which is the primary reason the stuffings has gone out of the American economy. A corporation only cares about its bottom line. It has no loyalty to society. This is our biggest problem of all, not Obama's bad economic ideas. He is begging for a few crumbs for the people, but corporations that control our world will give what they feel they must and no more. The American public is kept in a state of confusion meanwhile about where their benefits actually come from. At the paltry minimum wage now, it clearly doesn't come from corporations.
37
About giving corporations a tax break on bringing home overseas profits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/business/20tax.html?_r=1&scp=20&am...
"Corporations and their lobbyists say the tax break could resuscitate the gasping recovery by inducing multinational corporations to inject $1 trillion or more into the economy, and they promoted the proposal as “the next stimulus” at a conference last Wednesday in Washington.
“For every billion dollars that we invest, that creates 15,000 to 20,000 jobs either directly or indirectly,” Jim Rogers, the chief of Duke Energy, said at the conference. Duke has $1.3 billion in profits overseas.
But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.
Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.
This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/business/20tax.html?_r=1&scp=20&am...
"Corporations and their lobbyists say the tax break could resuscitate the gasping recovery by inducing multinational corporations to inject $1 trillion or more into the economy, and they promoted the proposal as “the next stimulus” at a conference last Wednesday in Washington.
“For every billion dollars that we invest, that creates 15,000 to 20,000 jobs either directly or indirectly,” Jim Rogers, the chief of Duke Energy, said at the conference. Duke has $1.3 billion in profits overseas.
But that’s not how it worked last time. Congress and the Bush administration offered companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment, and 800 took advantage.
Though the tax break lured them into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that money was returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, according to a study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research.
This money comes from overseas operations and in some cases accounting maneuvers that shift domestic profits to low-tax countries. The study concluded that the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”
44
The money was also drained from foreign economies where it presumably was invested.
Is it April 1st? I must have slept through two entire months. Gotta change my calendar.
Seriously, anyone whose resume includes a stint as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under W goes immediately into my File 13, if not in the evidence folder.
Columbia Business School? Seriously? Wow. We're in even more serious trouble than I thought.
Seriously, anyone whose resume includes a stint as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under W goes immediately into my File 13, if not in the evidence folder.
Columbia Business School? Seriously? Wow. We're in even more serious trouble than I thought.
151
Actually, given the deterioration of Columbia's main campus, it would be nice if Mr./Dr.? Hubbard could run a fund that would allow for things like asphalt tiles to be replaced, marble slabs to be leveled, bannisters to be put back on the stairs -- using titanium screws -- all this on main campus. (New "kiosk" computers in Butler Library.) Better than the attempts of the fund raisers to solicit contributions from humanities PhDs.)
Tangible results speak more than printed words.... Growth jobs... right here.
Tangible results speak more than printed words.... Growth jobs... right here.
1
Earth to Glenn, we have tried your pro-growth policies for over 30 years. They don't work. In fact, they are a spectacular failure, with ample evidence to prove it. Se Reagan's deficits, Bush's Depression and Brownback's Kansas.
Democratic "redistribution" policies on the other hand are spectacular successes, again with evidence - see FDR's New Deal, Clinton's economic boom, 50+ months of private sector job growth under Obama.
Tax "reform" (i.e. more cuts for the rich) and deregulation are a failure, and you can't always blame the poor for the crimes of rich Republicans.
Sorry, not buying it this time.
Democratic "redistribution" policies on the other hand are spectacular successes, again with evidence - see FDR's New Deal, Clinton's economic boom, 50+ months of private sector job growth under Obama.
Tax "reform" (i.e. more cuts for the rich) and deregulation are a failure, and you can't always blame the poor for the crimes of rich Republicans.
Sorry, not buying it this time.
218
I would say more. The Republicans have been practicing redistribution of income.
We now have the richest 400 Americans with as much wealth as the bottom half - 150 million.
And when they complain they are paying a larger percent of the total taxes it is because they are making a larger percent of the total income than ever.
We now have the richest 400 Americans with as much wealth as the bottom half - 150 million.
And when they complain they are paying a larger percent of the total taxes it is because they are making a larger percent of the total income than ever.
1
The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, nor did WW II
Let’s be blunt. If the recipe for economic recovery is putting tens of millions of people in defense plants or military marches, then having them make or drop bombs on our enemies overseas, the value of world peace is called into question. In truth, building tanks and feeding soldiers—necessary as it was to winning the war—became a crushing financial burden. We merely traded debt for unemployment. The expense of funding World War II hiked the national debt from $49 billion in 1941 to almost $260 billion in 1945. In other words, the war had only postponed the issue of recovery. ( http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/ )
It is now well understood that the minimal interference of the government during the time from our founding to the New Deal is what enabled the incredible growth of the United States. We’ve even seen that cutting government works here. After Calvin Coolidge sharply cut taxes, the roaring 20’s occurred ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015 ). The Heritage Foundation’s Index of economic freedom ( http://www.heritage.org/index/ ) shows this quite clearly.
If you want to restore prosperity, it would be wise to see what has historically worked and what is working, around the world, now. This administration is repeating the policies of the 1930s and wondering why the results they’re getting are pretty much the same.
Let’s be blunt. If the recipe for economic recovery is putting tens of millions of people in defense plants or military marches, then having them make or drop bombs on our enemies overseas, the value of world peace is called into question. In truth, building tanks and feeding soldiers—necessary as it was to winning the war—became a crushing financial burden. We merely traded debt for unemployment. The expense of funding World War II hiked the national debt from $49 billion in 1941 to almost $260 billion in 1945. In other words, the war had only postponed the issue of recovery. ( http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/what-ended-the-great-depression/ )
It is now well understood that the minimal interference of the government during the time from our founding to the New Deal is what enabled the incredible growth of the United States. We’ve even seen that cutting government works here. After Calvin Coolidge sharply cut taxes, the roaring 20’s occurred ( http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015 ). The Heritage Foundation’s Index of economic freedom ( http://www.heritage.org/index/ ) shows this quite clearly.
If you want to restore prosperity, it would be wise to see what has historically worked and what is working, around the world, now. This administration is repeating the policies of the 1930s and wondering why the results they’re getting are pretty much the same.
1
Peter , God bless you, your sublime comments says all.
The idea that "raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do...is a threat to continued economic expansion" is the classic Republican talking point. (In an op-ed that accuses the president of using mere economic talking points!) I'm not sure why this idea persists among conservative economists--after all, the US experienced post-war boom years when tax rates on investment were far higher than they are now; it didn't seem to prevent expansion then. Or look at NYC: a lot of the 1% here have complained about local taxes for years, but that hasn't caused them to pack up and move elsewhere, and the city is thriving. (They could, after all, move to states with no income tax, etc.) Whereas in a place like Kansas, which has slashed tax rates for the well-to-do in recent years, we see stagnant growth and crisis, and businesses are either disappearing or refusing invitations to come over.
Mr. Hubbard should know better. Having been part of the show, he knows that SOTU addresses rely on talking points, so his criticism is disingenuous. And he should also know that his own talking points run up against significant evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Hubbard should know better. Having been part of the show, he knows that SOTU addresses rely on talking points, so his criticism is disingenuous. And he should also know that his own talking points run up against significant evidence to the contrary.
74
The reforms I sketched are comprehensive?? Sketchy is more like it. Regarding overseas profits, you either ignore or pretend not to know that much if not most of those overseas corporate profits are earned in the US but shifted overseas. The US corporate tax base (federal and state) for multinational corporations is a fiction. And, to simply refer to businesses is misleading. There are businesses that conduct 100% of their business in the US - in one state or a number of states - and then there are two different kinds of multinational businesses - based in the US or based in a foreign country that operate in the US through US subsidiaries or a branch. What about the US profits Mr. Hubbard that foreign corporations earn in the US that are shifted overseas? Those profits are NOT repatriated. Once their US profits are shifted overseas they are gone for good. This is the REAL reason why US-based multinationals want to move their commercial domicile overseas. The US playing field is tilted to the advantage of foreign corporations operating in the US. I have yet to read about any US tax reforms that addresses that tax loophole other than a state's attempt to close the water's edge loophole (LD 1120 in Maine). We have meet the enemy and it is....US.
21
The writer's ideas are based on "redistribution" just as much as are Obama's ideas, albeit in a different direction.
50
We already have an economic plan based on redistribution - from the middle and working class to the pockets of the rich! Warren Buffet famously said that there was class war, and that his class was winning it. Thomas Picketty called for a tax on wealth...make it 150%.
36
Looting that fails to meet your standards is not the same as redistribution. If the poor and middle class had wealth that the wealthy plundered, then the poor and middle class by definition would be rich, wouldn't they?
"We need a plan based on growth and work, not redistribution."
Apparently Mr. Hubbard has slept through the past few decades of the American economy, which has consistently plundered the earnings of most working men and women, and redistributed these monies to the plutocrat classes.
Apparently Mr. Hubbard has slept through the past few decades of the American economy, which has consistently plundered the earnings of most working men and women, and redistributed these monies to the plutocrat classes.
53
Ah, for the days of a Republican administration (read: Eisenhower) that understood that government spending (fueled by a truly progressive tax system) could lift all boats. Case in point: the GI bill, which made it possible for a broad segment of society to purchase homes (building boom) and go to college (education boom). The national highway system (improved infrastructure) also aided economic growth.
I'm not saying that tax rates should go back to the highs of the 1950s (or, for that matter, that we should maintain our overdependence on private vs. public transportation) but come on, people, we all do better when the mega wealthy forsake a few extra vacation homes and personal jets and fork and do their share to fund much-needed public goods. Before another bridge collapses (and the Porsches will go down with the pick-up trucks), let's get serious about a public works program to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Put workers back to work and they will spend their paychecks. (Demand = supply)
I'm not saying that tax rates should go back to the highs of the 1950s (or, for that matter, that we should maintain our overdependence on private vs. public transportation) but come on, people, we all do better when the mega wealthy forsake a few extra vacation homes and personal jets and fork and do their share to fund much-needed public goods. Before another bridge collapses (and the Porsches will go down with the pick-up trucks), let's get serious about a public works program to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Put workers back to work and they will spend their paychecks. (Demand = supply)
25
This checklist of neo-liberal policies amounts to a wish list for already subsidized and bloated big businesses that have absurd political clout as it is.
Do we really think further lowering taxes for large corporations is a good idea? And let's get it straight, Conservatives want to convert entitlements into block grants in order to insure that these programs are devalued as inflation increases in the future. This is what was done with temporary assistance, which hasn't been increased since reform in the 90's. Now, we have states that make it nearly impossible to receive benefits, and when benefits are received, they barely cover part of a recipients housing costs, further compounding the poroblems of homelessness and poverty.
If anyone thinks the welfare state is bloated, you try living off of less than $400 a month.
This wish list for the wealthiest 1% is not just a bad idea for america, it's absolutely immoral. Before the days of Reagan and neo-liberalism, top tax rates were set at 91% on high-earners and guess what? Businesses didn't disappear, and entitlements were solvent, our roads and bridges weren't crumbling, homeless people didn't fill the streets and inequality wasn't a serious issue.
Graphs can be found from countless institutes that show the growth in inequality beginning with the Reagan tax-cuts, then beginning to disappear after Clinton's tax increases and then returning after Bush Jr.'s tax-cuts and tax holidays.
So again, why is this a good idea?
Do we really think further lowering taxes for large corporations is a good idea? And let's get it straight, Conservatives want to convert entitlements into block grants in order to insure that these programs are devalued as inflation increases in the future. This is what was done with temporary assistance, which hasn't been increased since reform in the 90's. Now, we have states that make it nearly impossible to receive benefits, and when benefits are received, they barely cover part of a recipients housing costs, further compounding the poroblems of homelessness and poverty.
If anyone thinks the welfare state is bloated, you try living off of less than $400 a month.
This wish list for the wealthiest 1% is not just a bad idea for america, it's absolutely immoral. Before the days of Reagan and neo-liberalism, top tax rates were set at 91% on high-earners and guess what? Businesses didn't disappear, and entitlements were solvent, our roads and bridges weren't crumbling, homeless people didn't fill the streets and inequality wasn't a serious issue.
Graphs can be found from countless institutes that show the growth in inequality beginning with the Reagan tax-cuts, then beginning to disappear after Clinton's tax increases and then returning after Bush Jr.'s tax-cuts and tax holidays.
So again, why is this a good idea?
25
Glenn Hubbard helped craft the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts and then trumpeted the deregulation that allowed Wall Street to crash the economy in 2008. Why his opinions are given any weight in the pages of NYT is beyond me.
57
Let's say it serves as a reminder of what we need to be wary of.... we should never forget what GoP policies have done to the nation.
1
The writer calls it "redistribution." I call it "clawback."
16
This guy should spend some time in a soup kitchen
27
Or working a minimum wage job.
Social Security stops collecting tax when your income goes over 118K or thereabouts, preventing the top 10% of earners from contributing their fair share to the Social Security system and cheating middle and lower income earners from receiving enough benefits to escape the senior citizen poverty trap.
Scrap the Cap.
Scrap the Cap.
35
That guy earning 118K has an effective Federal tax rate of about 19%, plus in many cases state tax around 5%. So he's paying the government about $28,000, a quarter of his earnings.
For higher incomes, the amounts go up sharply. The top 10% of earners already pay 68% of all Federal taxes.
The problem with the "fair share" rhetoric is that it's an ever-shifting idea based on nothing but envy and resentment.
For higher incomes, the amounts go up sharply. The top 10% of earners already pay 68% of all Federal taxes.
The problem with the "fair share" rhetoric is that it's an ever-shifting idea based on nothing but envy and resentment.
1
A couple of Hubbard's "solutions" are already in place. To focus on one, Medicare Advantage plans are privatized Medicare plans pure and simple (yes, there is a Medicare contract behind them, but they are private benefit plans that compete for additional benefits beyond Medicare). Why don't Republican purists acknowledge the success of Medicare Advantage in capturing 28% of the market and growing? Because, it deprives them of an ideological talking point.
7
My gosh. How did this reactionary piece get into the NYT!?
So much logic and fairness in so few words.
It does however violate a couple of bedrock principles that I as a conservative- who believes entailments must be reined in to economically sustainable levels and efficiently targeted to the truly needy- share with the left. Particularly those who live in rent controlled or stabilized apartments on the Upper West Side:
As a member of the undeserving-relatively but only relatively- "rich" any reform must not impinge on my bennies. Particularly those paid for with other people's money.
So much logic and fairness in so few words.
It does however violate a couple of bedrock principles that I as a conservative- who believes entailments must be reined in to economically sustainable levels and efficiently targeted to the truly needy- share with the left. Particularly those who live in rent controlled or stabilized apartments on the Upper West Side:
As a member of the undeserving-relatively but only relatively- "rich" any reform must not impinge on my bennies. Particularly those paid for with other people's money.
5
If the next President is Republican be assured that the policies of the Iikes of Mr Hubbard will be implemented to the same disastrous effect as they were under Mr Bush. Why is it such right wing ideologues find it so hard to learn from history, much less their own mistakes? Right, it's because this is ideology and there is nothing like the real world in sight. Thank goodness President Obama will have none of it. Fingers crossed for a future without Mr Hubbard advising anyone in power.
14
The President's "talking points" got a hearing alright -- from the American public which can decide for itself whether reducing the safety net and taxes on the extra-wealthy is the way forward or back. If Democrats support his ideas like free community college education and increased infrastructure investment, I think we'll be hearing a lot of evasive, hypocritical bluster from GOP candidates and spokespeople, just as Hubbard offers here, about these talking points, too.
4
"Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School, was a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush."
Hey, Glenn, how was that economy thing working out at the end of the Bush II administration? Oh right.
Hey, Glenn, how was that economy thing working out at the end of the Bush II administration? Oh right.
84
Let's cut taxes everywhere and charge our credit card to the tune of trillions of dollars in order to fight a meaningless war...
1
when are conservatives ever going to admit the failure of trickle down economics. Their theory keeps getting proven wrong during right wing presidencies and even in small state economies like Kansas. Every time it gets proven wrong over a brutal 4 or 8 year right wind presidency like Bush 1 or Bush 2, they have excuses after excuses. and when view through the long lens of history more liberal policies like FDR and Clinton or even Obama, the economy does much better. Would you rather re live the Bush years or the Clinton and Obama years? I tell my children that there were 3 republican presidencies in a row directly in front of the great depression, and a democratic presidency that got us out of it. Eventually every theory has got to bend to the evidence, and trickle down economics and more money for the rich just does not work, and that is the final truth.
31
but it's not failing for them and their cronies. Only for the rest of us.
1
"Our unwillingness to confront mounting inefficiencies in the nation’s tax code and growing obligations in entitlement programs..?
A dean of the Columbia Business School, with no experience in business, other than board-room stipends, thinks the guys giving him his freebie stipends should pay less tax? Refreshing idea for a con academic.
A dean of the Columbia Business School, with no experience in business, other than board-room stipends, thinks the guys giving him his freebie stipends should pay less tax? Refreshing idea for a con academic.
19
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/dynamic-scoring-once-again/...
"Another problem with dynamic scoring is that proponents often assert that if nominal federal revenue ever rises to the level before a tax cut, this proves that it paid for itself. Supporters of the tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration often state that since the aggregate dollar amount of federal revenue was higher in 2006 than it was in 2000, this is proof that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. (Revenue was well below its 2000 level from 2001 to 2005.)
This assertion is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebuttal, but since one still hears it, let me say that inflation raises nominal revenue and the economy generally grows over time whether taxes are cut or not. To observe that the nominal dollar amount of revenue is higher many years after a tax cut occurred tells us absolutely nothing about the revenue effects of that tax cut.
A better method would be to look at federal revenue as a share of gross domestic product. On this basis, the Bush tax cuts are still reducing federal revenue, which has yet to come close to where it was in 2000.
In practice, dynamic scoring is just another way for Republicans to enact tax cuts and block tax increases. It is not about honest revenue-estimating; it’s about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology into the budget process. "
"Another problem with dynamic scoring is that proponents often assert that if nominal federal revenue ever rises to the level before a tax cut, this proves that it paid for itself. Supporters of the tax cuts during the George W. Bush administration often state that since the aggregate dollar amount of federal revenue was higher in 2006 than it was in 2000, this is proof that the Bush tax cuts paid for themselves. (Revenue was well below its 2000 level from 2001 to 2005.)
This assertion is so ridiculous it hardly needs rebuttal, but since one still hears it, let me say that inflation raises nominal revenue and the economy generally grows over time whether taxes are cut or not. To observe that the nominal dollar amount of revenue is higher many years after a tax cut occurred tells us absolutely nothing about the revenue effects of that tax cut.
A better method would be to look at federal revenue as a share of gross domestic product. On this basis, the Bush tax cuts are still reducing federal revenue, which has yet to come close to where it was in 2000.
In practice, dynamic scoring is just another way for Republicans to enact tax cuts and block tax increases. It is not about honest revenue-estimating; it’s about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology into the budget process. "
19
''...growth, work and opportunity''?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office regularly publishes estimates of the impact of different forms of federal spending on promoting economic growth. Investments in infrastructure and extended unemployment stimulate growth 3-4 times more than tax cuts for upper income people.
The policies of the President that Hubbard served, G.W. Bush, pushed tax cuts for the wealthy while increasing spending on defense. The deficit ballooned, the debt doubled, and economic inequality accelerated.
While we have ''recovered'' from the Great Recession, low (or nonexistent) median wage growth and anemic consumer demand limit ''growth, work and opportunity,'' even as Republicans in Congress block reasonable investments in policies we know are effective.
There is no reason to believe that the bad ideas Mr. Hubbard proposes will do anything to make things better for working and middle class people, or for that matter, that his ideas will be considered any more seriously by this Congress than will President Obama's.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office regularly publishes estimates of the impact of different forms of federal spending on promoting economic growth. Investments in infrastructure and extended unemployment stimulate growth 3-4 times more than tax cuts for upper income people.
The policies of the President that Hubbard served, G.W. Bush, pushed tax cuts for the wealthy while increasing spending on defense. The deficit ballooned, the debt doubled, and economic inequality accelerated.
While we have ''recovered'' from the Great Recession, low (or nonexistent) median wage growth and anemic consumer demand limit ''growth, work and opportunity,'' even as Republicans in Congress block reasonable investments in policies we know are effective.
There is no reason to believe that the bad ideas Mr. Hubbard proposes will do anything to make things better for working and middle class people, or for that matter, that his ideas will be considered any more seriously by this Congress than will President Obama's.
10
The problem is that jobs ARE growing - overseas.
Until we get America's companies to stop sending their operations overseas, the you are offering nothing but pie-in-the-sky. Obama was right to propose what he did.
C'mon! Growth and jobs? You really need to direct this op-ed to America's CEOs
Until we get America's companies to stop sending their operations overseas, the you are offering nothing but pie-in-the-sky. Obama was right to propose what he did.
C'mon! Growth and jobs? You really need to direct this op-ed to America's CEOs
3
Lower taxes for the rich and deregulation for the past 30 years sure has worked out well for everyone but the rich, let's do it some more. Good thinking.
And redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich for the past 30 years was okay, but let's not do it in reverse. More good thinking.
What right wing puppet for the rich drivel. I thought I was reading a WSJ editorial.
And redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich for the past 30 years was okay, but let's not do it in reverse. More good thinking.
What right wing puppet for the rich drivel. I thought I was reading a WSJ editorial.
15
To bad you are not the president, just kidding. Advisor to George W. Bush, what a success. Thank you for your comments, but no thanks. You have had your chance.
8
Hubbard is simply the mouthpiece of conservatism here. The piece is full of conservative imagery of a country full of unworthy takers who should be shoved aside to let the doers do. It's hog-wash.
Here's some news for Mr. Hubbard; we have growth. The spoils of growth go mostly to the already rich. Instead of calling it redistribution, why don't we call it fair distribution. Instead of speaking of entitlements why not speak of social responsibilities. By lambasting the president for offering a way forward for the poor and under-educated, this conservative repeats the call for the rich to keep more.
How can anybody read such prose and not feel a sense of the selfishness behind it?
Inefficiencies of the tax code? The biggest inefficiency is that we collect too little in taxes. If there were no salary cap on contributions to Social Security--if coupon clipping and income on interest was taxed at the same rate as wages and corporations paid taxes like the middle class without the possibility to cheat by establishing letterbox entities in foreign countries, we'd go a long way to fixing some of our inefficiencies.
President Obama needs to remain deaf to this kind of noise and keep his eyes on the goal of a better America.
Here's some news for Mr. Hubbard; we have growth. The spoils of growth go mostly to the already rich. Instead of calling it redistribution, why don't we call it fair distribution. Instead of speaking of entitlements why not speak of social responsibilities. By lambasting the president for offering a way forward for the poor and under-educated, this conservative repeats the call for the rich to keep more.
How can anybody read such prose and not feel a sense of the selfishness behind it?
Inefficiencies of the tax code? The biggest inefficiency is that we collect too little in taxes. If there were no salary cap on contributions to Social Security--if coupon clipping and income on interest was taxed at the same rate as wages and corporations paid taxes like the middle class without the possibility to cheat by establishing letterbox entities in foreign countries, we'd go a long way to fixing some of our inefficiencies.
President Obama needs to remain deaf to this kind of noise and keep his eyes on the goal of a better America.
10
The NYT Opinion Page has now fulfilled its annual quota of sensible theory. You can put your Che shirts back on and continue to advocate that we emulate Venezuela.
And you can continue to stump for a guy who formulated W's economic policy. That was a real success.
2
Let's look at Hubbard's proposals closely. They are nothing but a combination of Paul Ryan's budget and Ken Melmahn's proposed replacement for Obamacare. I admit that some of the idea's sound interesting and fresh until you actually think about them for a second. Conservatives often claim that social security and medicare are a waste of money, so they propose raiding the funds and giving medicare money to seniors so that they can buy private insurance. Similar to the A.C.A., this sounds a lot like handing over government money to private companies. My Aetna stock is doing quite well since the A.C.A., and I would buy some more stocks in the healthcare sector to help cover the cost of actually having to buy insurance. Secondly he proposes to hand social security money over in block grants to the states. Social Security isn't perfect, and undoubtedly has some administrative inefficiencies, but I fail to see how 50 state governors running 50 different programs is somehow going to be more effective, or fulfill the G.O.P. dream of being less government, or even less vulnerable to corruption or embezzlement. During Rick Snyder's first term as governor of Michigan, he imposed a tax on public pension benefits to create a slush fund to to provide tax incentives for companies wishing to relocate to Michigan. How could we be sure that block grant money goes to provide a social safety net in all states without being siphoned off to other projects or be left unspent?
4
Thirty four years of harnessing tax policy to move wealth to the top and the answer is squeezing the bottom to help the top of the top. How much is enough, Mr. Hubbard?
11
Same old, same old. This respectable Columbia University dean was one of the manufacturers of the plunge into chaos under George W.
11
Are you KIDDING me???? In this economic "recovery", we have had massive redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest among us, leaving the masses out in the cold with either no job of a job that pays a fraction of what it did before. This has been thievery on a massive scale. I suppose when a conservative talks about "redistribution", it's a one-way street. Up is good, down is bad. We are dying as a nation, the thin skin of prosperity on top hiding the rotting core with no middle. Why is is that every other industrialized nation has been able to figure out that a country exists for the good all ALL of its people, not just the wealthiest and we just can't figure out that one simple fact?
9
The progressive chorus has honed narcissism to a high art, perceiving virtue only in its own reflection in the mirror. Good luck with that.
Narcissism?
Since when does speaking up and stating what one sees constitute narcissism?
If a person puts in a good day's work, they deserve to be compensated. And they are obligated to kick a proportional amount of that compensation back into the public kitty so the public infrastructure can be developed and maintained. That's how a democratic country works.
If you game the system and cripple it's financial viability, you're on your own in a wasteland of thieves.
Good luck with that.
Since when does speaking up and stating what one sees constitute narcissism?
If a person puts in a good day's work, they deserve to be compensated. And they are obligated to kick a proportional amount of that compensation back into the public kitty so the public infrastructure can be developed and maintained. That's how a democratic country works.
If you game the system and cripple it's financial viability, you're on your own in a wasteland of thieves.
Good luck with that.
1
1. This doesn't really address growth because that requires investment and the rich are all about not dipping into capital. But growth is the engine for everything else. With growth people work and they don't need public handouts. What's the growth agenda for the GOP? Cutting taxes and relying on the free market has a 30 year track record of failure.
2. This misrepresents the idea of insurance generally and social insurance in particular. Saving accounts don't work because we can't predict when we would need them, for instance when we are sick. True, older people are sicker but this is a case where you can't design a program for the average person. You need a program for all people.
3. We are a democracy and every citizen should be able to expect the same services according to the biblical nostrum that much is expected from those who have much. They rarely get to those positions alone but leverage many government sponsored services. Federal courts? Patent office?accelerated depreciation? None of these do much for the average family yet we all pay to support them.
4. Taxes are a happy problem, they indicate success. We were a more prosperous nation when we thought more about how to be successful than about how to keep more of our gains.
5. Twain said that history doesn't repeat itself but it why rhymes. What rhymes with 1776, Bastille Day and 1917?
2. This misrepresents the idea of insurance generally and social insurance in particular. Saving accounts don't work because we can't predict when we would need them, for instance when we are sick. True, older people are sicker but this is a case where you can't design a program for the average person. You need a program for all people.
3. We are a democracy and every citizen should be able to expect the same services according to the biblical nostrum that much is expected from those who have much. They rarely get to those positions alone but leverage many government sponsored services. Federal courts? Patent office?accelerated depreciation? None of these do much for the average family yet we all pay to support them.
4. Taxes are a happy problem, they indicate success. We were a more prosperous nation when we thought more about how to be successful than about how to keep more of our gains.
5. Twain said that history doesn't repeat itself but it why rhymes. What rhymes with 1776, Bastille Day and 1917?
2
Glenn Hubbard, one of the people responsible for the biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest handful of international billionaires, is calling President Obama's vision of returning wealth to the middle classes a bad idea. This is one of the men behind the last economic crash, from which we are now just beginning to emerge.
He thinks that he knows how to run an economy.
Who ever would have guessed?
He thinks that he knows how to run an economy.
Who ever would have guessed?
15
Here's the problem: Republicans and the academic economists who justify pro-business policies claim to want pro-growth policies that will lift all boats. But the second actual economic growth heats up enough to start moving wages upwards, these same economists start flipping out about inflation and demand that the Fed raise interest rates to tamp down growth.
1
Bashing the President's ideological talking points while offering... ideological talking points. Clever. Your long ultraconservative wish list is no more likely to be passed than the President's. Anyway, he's not expecting to engage the Republicans in Congress; he's hoping to engage the American people. Centrists and conservatives have pushed the country further and further to the right; the President is attempting to open up a national dialog where left leaning ideas can at least be given fair consideration.
And a lack of business opportunity is not this nation's problem. The stock market has more than doubled during the President's tenure; profits are sky high. What the US lacks is well-paying low-skilled jobs. They're gone, and not coming back. Not just because of cheap foreign labor, but because of productivity growth here in this country. If you needed 10 workers to build a widget but now you only need two, you can build five times as many widgets, or employ one fifth the workers. Big data has made it feasible for corporations to finely tune their work staff. Instead of paying a full staff all year round, now it's common to have a small full time staff and lots of part time workers during peak periods. So, no. "Rewarding work" isn't going to make businesses give up these new efficiencies. You've got great 19th century solutions for 21st century problems. And oh, educational expenses are already partially deductible and have been for a long time.
And a lack of business opportunity is not this nation's problem. The stock market has more than doubled during the President's tenure; profits are sky high. What the US lacks is well-paying low-skilled jobs. They're gone, and not coming back. Not just because of cheap foreign labor, but because of productivity growth here in this country. If you needed 10 workers to build a widget but now you only need two, you can build five times as many widgets, or employ one fifth the workers. Big data has made it feasible for corporations to finely tune their work staff. Instead of paying a full staff all year round, now it's common to have a small full time staff and lots of part time workers during peak periods. So, no. "Rewarding work" isn't going to make businesses give up these new efficiencies. You've got great 19th century solutions for 21st century problems. And oh, educational expenses are already partially deductible and have been for a long time.
5
"raising marginal tax rates on investment by the well-to-do reduces asset prices and is a threat to continued economic expansion." is false, historically inaccurate, and would instead lead to broader economic expansion.
It is so outrageous to read such claims. It is the height of arrogance to try to secure even more wealth for the very wealthy. "Businesses would be able to bring back overseas profits free of additional United States taxes." if we lowered the rates, rewarding corporations for hiding their earnings in Ireland and other foreign countries so that they could bring them "home".
Excluding or reducing benefits to the wealthy opens the Republican argument for ending the contribution of the wealthy to fund SS. Instead we must raise the ceiling to $250,000. and peg that to inflation to keep SS solvent.
Changing Medicare so private firms could siphon money from Medicare has already been tried and failed.
Raise top marginal rates; tax corporate assets that are in America for every dollar not taxed and kept off shore; Medicare for all is what the 99% want and need. What Hubbard proposes is false, without historical evidence of success, and harmful to the majority. Hubbard should be recognized as a partisan whose proposals are propaganda.
It is so outrageous to read such claims. It is the height of arrogance to try to secure even more wealth for the very wealthy. "Businesses would be able to bring back overseas profits free of additional United States taxes." if we lowered the rates, rewarding corporations for hiding their earnings in Ireland and other foreign countries so that they could bring them "home".
Excluding or reducing benefits to the wealthy opens the Republican argument for ending the contribution of the wealthy to fund SS. Instead we must raise the ceiling to $250,000. and peg that to inflation to keep SS solvent.
Changing Medicare so private firms could siphon money from Medicare has already been tried and failed.
Raise top marginal rates; tax corporate assets that are in America for every dollar not taxed and kept off shore; Medicare for all is what the 99% want and need. What Hubbard proposes is false, without historical evidence of success, and harmful to the majority. Hubbard should be recognized as a partisan whose proposals are propaganda.
4
A person must pay into Medicare for 10 years to receive coverage. Yes, that is what we need instead of millions receiving free Obamacare at the expense of taxpaying middle class workers.
As a Swede and frequent visitor to the US with many friends from the states going back almost two decades, I find the tax debate both in the US and Europe to be highly local and without much consideration of the globalization or the technical paradigm shifts going on. I'm a scientist, used to handle big data, even if I'm not an economist. Maybe that helps me to see patterns that most economists seem to miss out on.
Sweden has one of the most progressive tax systems in the West (God knows that I notice the big chunk bitten off my pay check) - with a lot of it going to redistributions. We also have (almost) free health care, schools and universities. We also have more universities on the top 100 list per capita than any other country.
So far so good.
But the unemployment rate is still raising. The growth is slowing. Companies moves their corp. HQ to other countries to avoid taxes. So what did Sweden do? Oh yes, tax cuts. Quite big ones the last decade. Sure the tax is still much higher than in the US, but still. And now? The same thing. Slowing growth and raising unemployment.
France went the other way - raised their taxes to crazy levels. And is on their way to destroy their entire economy (great work Hollande. Not.)
So tax cuts. Tax raises. Seems to have local, temporary effects. Why? In a global world Ericsson and Apple alike finds it better to employ people in asia. The work that remains in the west is being replaced by machines to a large extent. Tax that if you can!
Sweden has one of the most progressive tax systems in the West (God knows that I notice the big chunk bitten off my pay check) - with a lot of it going to redistributions. We also have (almost) free health care, schools and universities. We also have more universities on the top 100 list per capita than any other country.
So far so good.
But the unemployment rate is still raising. The growth is slowing. Companies moves their corp. HQ to other countries to avoid taxes. So what did Sweden do? Oh yes, tax cuts. Quite big ones the last decade. Sure the tax is still much higher than in the US, but still. And now? The same thing. Slowing growth and raising unemployment.
France went the other way - raised their taxes to crazy levels. And is on their way to destroy their entire economy (great work Hollande. Not.)
So tax cuts. Tax raises. Seems to have local, temporary effects. Why? In a global world Ericsson and Apple alike finds it better to employ people in asia. The work that remains in the west is being replaced by machines to a large extent. Tax that if you can!
4
To the author's great chagrin, Barack Obama has undone the massive economic disaster that the GOP created and bequeathed to him in 2008. With the exception of ideas about education write-offs, all of his ideas are failed. Go Barack!!!
7
A fine piece of satire.
No?
No?
16