DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Tax Framework: a Blueprint for Averting a Fiscal Crisis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A New Tax Framework : A Blueprint for Averting a Fiscal Crisis Framework : A Blueprint for Averting A New Tax A New Tax Framework: A Blueprint for Averting a Fiscal Crisis Committee for Economic Development A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee 2000 L Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20036 of the Committee for Economic Development Phone: (202) 296-5860 Fax: (202) 223-0776 CED www.ced.org A New Tax Framework: A Blueprint for Averting a Fiscal Crisis A Statement by the Research and Policy Committee of the Committee for Economic Development A New Tax Framework: A Blueprint for Averting a Fiscal Crisis Includes bibliographic references ISBN: 0-87186-178-X First printing in bound-book form: 2005 Printed in the United States of America COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C., 20036 (202)-296-5860 www.ced.org ii Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 I. INTRODUCTION: WHY THIS POLICY STATEMENT? 5 II. THE IMPENDING FISCAL CRISIS 7 Why We Must Act: The Dimensions of the Fiscal Crisis 7 Why We Must Act On All Budgetary Fronts 10 Why We Must Act Now 11 III. WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE INCOME TAX? 13 The Current Income Tax is Complex, Opaque, and Unstable 13 Tax Preferences Impair Economic Stability and Growth 15 Tax Expenditures Are Often Inequitable 18 The Tax System is Burdensome to Taxpayers and the Government 18 The Income Tax Alone Cannot Raise Sufficient Revenues 19 IV. A NEW FRAMEWORK: CED’s RECOMMENDATIONS 21 Summary of Recommendations 22 Discussion of Recommendations 23 V. ADDING IT UP: THE BUDGET IMPACT OF THE NEW FRAMEWORK 33 Spending Restraint Under Current Tax Policies 33 The CED Tax Framework With Spending Restraint 34 VI. CONCLUSION 37 Endnotes 38 iii Responsibility For CED Statements On National Policy The Committee for Economic Development is an proposals; its purpose is to urge careful consideration independent research and policy organization of over of the objectives set forth in this statement and of the 200 business leaders and educators. CED is non-profit, best means of accomplishing those objectives. non-partisan, and non-political. Its purpose is to pro- Each statement is preceded by extensive discussions, pose policies that bring about steady economic growth meetings, and exchange of memoranda. The research at high employment and reasonably stable prices, is undertaken by a subcommittee, assisted by advisors increased productivity and living standards, greater chosen for their competence in the field under study. and more equal opportunity for every citizen, and an improved quality of life for all. The full Research and Policy Committee participates in the drafting of recommendations. Likewise, the trust- All CED policy recommendations must have the ap- ees on the drafting subcommittee vote to approve or proval of trustees on the Research and Policy Commit- disapprove a policy statement, and they share with tee. This committee is directed under the bylaws, which the Research and Policy Committee the privilege of emphasize that “all research is to be thoroughly objec- submitting individual comments for publication. tive in character, and the approach in each instance is to be from the standpoint of the general welfare and not The recommendations presented herein are those of the from that of any special political or economic group.” trustee members of the Research and Policy Committee The committee is aided by a Research Advisory Board and the responsible subcommittee. They are not necessarily of leading social scientists and by a small permanent endorsed by other trustees or by non-trustee subcommittee professional staff. members, advisors, contributors, staff members, or others The Research and Policy Committee does not attempt associated with CED. to pass judgment on any pending specific legislative iv Research and Policy Committee Co-Chairmen RONALD R. DAVENPORT NICHOLAS G. MOORE Chairman of the Board Director PATRICK W. GROSS Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation Bechtel Group, Inc. Chairman, The Lovell Group JOHN DIEBOLD STEFFEN E. PALKO Founder, AMS Chairman Retired Vice Chairman and President BRUCE K. MACLAURY John Diebold Incorporated XTO Energy Inc. President Emeritus FRANK P. DOYLE CAROL J. PARRY The Brookings Institution Retired Executive Vice President President General Electric Corporate Social Responsibility Associates T.J. DERMOT DUNPHY Vice Chairman Chairman VICTOR A. PELSON Kildare Enterprises, LLC IAN ARNOF Senior Advisor UBS Warburg LLC Retired Chairman W. D. EBERLE Bank One, Louisiana, N.A. Chairman PETER G. PETERSON Manchester Associates, Ltd. Senior Chairman The Blackstone Group EDMUND B. FITZGERALD REX D. ADAMS Managing Director NED REGAN Professor of Business Administration Woodmont Associates University Professor The Fuqua School of Business The City University of New York HARRY L. FREEMAN Duke University Chair JAMES Q. RIORDAN ALAN BELZER The Mark Twain Institute Chairman Retired President and Quentin Partners Co. BARBARA B. GROGAN Chief Operating Officer LANDON H. ROWLAND AlliedSignal Inc. President Western Industrial Contractors Chairman PETER A. BENOLIEL Ever Glades Financial RICHARD W. HANSELMAN Chairman Emeritus GEORGE RUPP Quaker Chemical Corporation Chairman Health Net Inc. President ROY J. BOSTOCK International Rescue Committee RODERICK M. HILLS Chairman ROCCO C. SICILIANO Sealedge Investments Chairman Hills & Stern, LLP Beverly Hills, California FLETCHER L. BYROM EDWARD A. KANGAS MATTHEW J. STOVER President and Chief Executive Officer MICASU Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chairman Retired LKM Ventures DONALD R. CALDWELL Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ARNOLD R. WEBER Chairman and Chief Executive Officer JOSEPH E. KASPUTYS Cross Atlantic Capital Partners President Emeritus Chairman, President and Northwestern University CAROLYN CHIN Chief Executive Officer JOSH S. WESTON Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Global Insight, Inc. Cebiz Honorary Chairman CHARLES E.M. KOLB Automatic Data Processing, Inc. A. W. CLAUSEN President Retired Chairman and Committee for Economic Development Chief Executive Officer ALONZO L. MCDONALD BankAmerica Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer JOHN L. CLENDENIN Avenir Group, Inc. Retired Chairman BellSouth Corporation v Subcommittee on Tax Reform Chair W. Mark Lanier *Josh S. Weston Partner Honorary Chairman *W. Bowman Cutter The Lanier Law Firm, PC Automatic Data Processing Inc. Managing Director Warburg Pincus William Lewis *Linda Smith Wilson Director Emeritus President Emerita Trustees McKinsey Global Institute Radcliffe College Ian Arnof McKinsey and Company, Inc. Retired Chairman Margaret Wilson Bank One, Louisiana, N.A. Donald K. Peterson President and Chief Executive Officer President & CEO Scarbroughs Peter A. Benoliel Avaya Inc. Chairman Emeritus Jacob J. Worenklein *James Q. Riordan Quaker Chemical Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Chairman US Power Generating Company Quentin Partners Co. David A. Caputo Ex-Officio Members President E.B. Robinson, JR. Pace University Chairman Emeritus Patrick W. Gross Deposit Guaranty Corporation Chairman, The Lovell Group Carolyn Chin Founder, AMS, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Landon H. Rowland Cebiz Chairman Bruce K. MacLaury Ever Glades Financial President Emeritus Ronald Davenport The Brookings Institution Chairman of the Board George Rupp Sheridan Broadcasting Corporation President Advisors International Rescue Committee John Diebold William G. Gale Chairman Bertram L. Scott Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution John Diebold Incorporated President Co-director, Urban-Brookings TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company Tax Policy Center Irwin Dorros TIAA-CREF President C. Eugene Steuerle Dorros Associates John C. Siciliano Senior Fellow Director, Global Institutional Services The Urban Institute *W.D. Eberle Dimensional Fund Advisors Co-director, Urban-Brookings Chairman Tax Policy Center Manchester Associates, Ltd. Lawrence Summers President Project Director Pamela B. Gann Harvard University Van Doorn Ooms President Claremont McKenna College Stephen Joel Trachtenberg Senior Fellow Committee for Economic Development President Gerald Greenwald George Washington University Managing Partner Project Associates Greenbriar Equity Jerry D. Weast David Kamin Superintendent Jerome Grossman Montgomery County Public Schools Jessica Nuzzelillo Senior Fellow Harvard University Arnold R. Weber Katherine Twomey President Emeritus Judith H. Hamilton Northwestern University Retired CEO, Classroom Connect, President, Hamilton Consulting * Voted to approve the policy statement but submitted memorandum of comment, reservation or dissent. See page 43. vi Purpose of This Statement Responsible projections of federal expenditures and the overall tax system. We recommend modifications revenues indicate an impending fiscal crisis. This to the income tax to reduce its complexity (including prospective explosion of future budget deficits is repeal of the alternative minimum tax, or AMT) and driven primarily by rapidly rising health care costs improve its efficiency and equity, as well as changes in and the aging of our society. As this report shows, the tax-writing and budget processes. We believe this even very substantial restraint in the growth of new tax framework can help avert the impending fiscal federal expenditures is unlikely, in itself, to restore crisis and create a sound foundation for future growth fiscal stability. and prosperity. In the longer term, far-reaching structural reforms in our health care system and federal
Recommended publications
  • Income Shifting

    Income Shifting

    Income shifting Standard Note: SN/BT/4620 Last updated: 2 February 2009 Author: Antony Seely Section Business & Transport Section In the Pre Budget Report in October 2007 the Government stated that it would introduce legislation to prevent individuals from arranging “their affairs to gain a tax advantage by shifting part of their income, from dividends to partnership profits, to another person who is subject to a lower rate of tax.”1 The origins of this announcement lie in a long-running case which concluded in the House of Lords on 25 July 2007. Geoff and Diana Jones, co-owners of Arctic Systems, a small IT business, had used a device – commonly-called income-splitting or income-shifting – practiced by many couples to reduce their overall tax bill. Rather than take a large salary, the main earner diverts part of his income through the structure of the family business into their spouse’s hands. As their partner is in a lower tax-bracket, this minimises the couple’s liability. HM Revenue & Customs asserted that the Jones’ arrangements contravened the ‘settlements legislation’: provisions in tax law to prevent settlements – generally speaking, a disposition, trust, covenant, agreement, arrangement or transfer of assets – being used to gain tax advantages. However, many in the accountancy profession took the view that the tax authorities were seeking to brand ordinary commercial decisions as artificial tax avoidance. The Lords found for the taxpayer, but the day after the judgement the Government confirmed it would introduce legislation
  • Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush

    Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush

    Hundreds of economists across the nation agree. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution; Katharine Abraham, University of Maryland; Frank Ackerman, Global Development and Environment Institute; William James Adams, University of Michigan; Earl W. Adams, Allegheny College; Irma Adelman, University of California – Berkeley; Moshe Adler, Fiscal Policy Institute; Behrooz Afraslabi, Allegheny College; Randy Albelda, University of Massachusetts – Boston; Polly R. Allen, University of Connecticut; Gar Alperovitz, University of Maryland; Alice H. Amsden, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert M. Anderson, University of California; Ralph Andreano, University of Wisconsin; Laura M. Argys, University of Colorado – Denver; Robert K. Arnold, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy; David Arsen, Michigan State University; Michael Ash, University of Massachusetts – Amherst; Alice Audie-Figueroa, International Union, UAW; Robert L. Axtell, The Brookings Institution; M.V. Lee Badgett, University of Massachusetts – Amherst; Ron Baiman, University of Illinois – Chicago; Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Drucilla K. Barker, Hollins University; David Barkin, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana – Unidad Xochimilco; William A. Barnett, University of Kansas and Washington University; Timothy J. Bartik, Upjohn Institute; Bradley W. Bateman, Grinnell College; Francis M. Bator, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government; Sandy Baum, Skidmore College; William J. Baumol, New York University; Randolph T. Beard, Auburn University; Michael Behr; Michael H. Belzer, Wayne State University; Arthur Benavie, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill; Peter Berg, Michigan State University; Alexandra Bernasek, Colorado State University; Michael A. Bernstein, University of California – San Diego; Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute; Rari Bhandari, University of California – Berkeley; Melissa Binder, University of New Mexico; Peter Birckmayer, SUNY – Empire State College; L.
  • Proposals to Improve the Low-Wage Labor Market for Older Workers

    Proposals to Improve the Low-Wage Labor Market for Older Workers

    f NOVEMBER 2020 Better jobs, longer working lives: Proposals to improve the low-wage labor market for older workers ______________________________________________________ Beth C. Truesdale Research Associate, Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard University This report is available online at: https://www.brookings.edu The Brookings Economic Studies program analyzes current and emerging economic issues facing the United States and the world, focusing on ideas to achieve broad-based economic growth, a strong labor market, sound fiscal and monetary pol- icy, and economic opportunity and social mobility. The re- search aims to increase understanding of how the economy works and what can be done to make it work better. ECONOMIC STUDIES AT BROOKINGS Contents About the author .......................................................................................................................3 Statement of independence ......................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................3 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5 Many Americans in their 50s are already out of the labor force .......................................
  • Retiree Health Vebas: a New Twist on an Old Paradigm Implications for Retirees, Unions and Employers

    Retiree Health Vebas: a New Twist on an Old Paradigm Implications for Retirees, Unions and Employers

    MED ICARE Retiree Health VEBAs: A New Twist On An Old Paradigm Implications for Retirees, Unions and Employers Prepared By: Phyllis C. Borzi, J.D., M.A. Research Professor The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services Department of Health Policy For: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation March 2009 This paper was commissioned by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Conclusions or opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Retiree Health VEBAs: A New Twist On An Old Paradigm Implications for Retirees, Unions and Employers By Phyllis C. Borzi1 Executive Summary Employers have been using traditional trusts called VEBAs (voluntary employees’ beneficiary associations) for decades to put aside money to pay medical and other benefits for their employees as a hedge against future payment difficulties. But as health care costs have continued to escalate and businesses have faced growing economic challenges, many employers are rethinking their long-term health care promises to retirees. As part of this transformation, the traditional VEBA has taken on a different character and a new form of VEBA has emerged: the so-called “stand-alone” VEBA trust, through which some employers have been able to rid themselves of future obligations to pay retiree health benefits in exchange for making a significant payment to the VEBA designed to approximate the total projected cost of the benefits. The purpose of this issue brief is to discuss several key questions in connection with the current use of stand-alone VEBAs. The paper profiles three VEBAs through case studies, draws preliminary conclusions from their early experiences, and considers the implications and future questions raised by this approach to providing retiree medical benefits.
  • Miracle Or Mirage? 45 Stealth Taxes Under New Labour

    Miracle Or Mirage? 45 Stealth Taxes Under New Labour

    Centre for Policy Studies MIRACLE OR MIRAGE? NEW LABOUR’S ECONOMIC RECORD IN PERSPECTIVE Keith Marsden 45 STEALTH TAXES UNDER NEW LABOUR THE AUTHOR Keith Marsden is an economics consultant to several UN agencies, based in Geneva. He was previously an operations adviser at the World Bank, a senior economist in the International Labour Office, and an economist in British industry. He has undertaken studies and advisory missions in over 50 countries, and has written numerous articles on economic policy for the International Labour Review, Finance and Development, The European Journal and the Wall Street Journal. Recent publications include Miracle or Mirage?: Britain’s economy seen from abroad (Centre for Policy Studies, 1997), Is Tax Competition Harmful? (European Policy Forum, 1998), Handicap, not Trump Card (CPS, 1999), The Five Per Cent Solution (CPS, 2000) and Towards a Treaty of Commerce (CPS, 2000). He was educated at Quarry Bank High School, Liverpool, Lancaster Royal Grammar School and Cambridge University. He is married to a French citizen from the Béarn. The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation. The views expressed in our publications are, however, the sole responsibility of the authors. Contributions are chosen for their value in informing public debate and should not be taken as representing a corporate view of the CPS or of its Directors. The CPS values its independence and does not carry on activities with the intention of affecting public support for any registered political party or for candidates at election, or to influence voters in a referendum.
  • Confianza, Savings, and Retirement: a Study of Mexican Immigrants

    Confianza, Savings, and Retirement: a Study of Mexican Immigrants

    A series of papers by the Institute for Latino Studies and research associates Vol. 2012.1 February 2012 Confianza, Savings, and Retirement: A Study of Mexican Immigrants Karen Richman, Teresa Ghilarducci, Roger Knight, Erin Jelm, and Joelle Saad-Lesser Institute for Latino Studies Confianza, Savings, and Retirement: A Study of Mexican Immigrants Karen Richman, Teresa Ghilarducci, Roger Knight, Erin Jelm, and Joelle Saad-Lesser Institute for Latino Studies, University of Notre Dame 230 McKenna Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556-5685 (574) 631-4440 • Toll Free (866) 460-5586 • latinostudies.nd.edu The Research Reports series is a publication of the Institute for Latino Studies at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute or the University. Vol. 2012.1, February 2012 Acknowledgments We are grateful to the National Endowment for Financial Education for their generous support of this research. We thank the many thoughtful persons in the Chicago area who shared their insights and trust with us, as well as Second Federal Savings and Loan, Southside Senior Center, Resurrection Project, and Institute for Latino Progress. The cooperation and support of National-Louis University, Devry College, and Deloitte and Touche are much appreciated. Many students, faculty, and staff at the Institute for Latino Studies at University of Notre Dame assisted with this report. We especially thank our students Prisma Garcia and Camille Suarez for their diligent contributions to the research. We are indebted to Institute administrators, Gilberto Cárdenas, Allert Brown-Gort, and Douglas Franson for their support and advice. We are grateful to Andrew Deliyannides and Vickie Wagner for their editorial support.
  • Compulsory Bond Purchase As Compromise to Income Tax Rate Increases

    Compulsory Bond Purchase As Compromise to Income Tax Rate Increases

    DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal Volume 8 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 3 Proposal: Compulsory Bond Purchase as Compromise to Income Tax Rate Increases Stanley Veliotis Kristen Gray Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/bclj Recommended Citation Stanley Veliotis & Kristen Gray, Proposal: Compulsory Bond Purchase as Compromise to Income Tax Rate Increases, 8 DePaul Bus. & Com. L.J. 37 (2009) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/bclj/vol8/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPOSAL: Compulsory Bond Purchase as Compromise to Income Tax Rate Increases Stanley Veliotis* and Kristen Gray** Abstract It is a common-held expectation that the U.S. federal government will need to increase cash receipts over the next decade. While the highest marginalincome tax rates for many years were more than twice what they have been in the last three decades, it is expected that political pressures will not allow more than a modest increase in the current marginaltax rates. This Article proposes that the formerly prevalent higher marginal rates be reinstated on excessive personal services in- come, which is least likely to be subject to disincentive effects. How- ever, to address probable insurmountable political resistance, the portion of the rate in excess of the 39.6% tax rate should be converted to an asset for the taxpayer - U.S.
  • Download Contributors

    Download Contributors

    15contribs.qxd 1/8/03 10:51 AM Page 285 Contributors David S. Blitzstein is Director of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) Negotiated BeneWts, where he advises local unions in collective bargaining on pension and health insurance issues and consults with the union’s 150 jointly trusteed health and welfare and pension plans nationwide. He is also a trustee of the $3.5 billion UFCW Industry Pension Fund and the UFCW National Health and Welfare Fund. He represents the UFCW as a member of the working committee of the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans and serves as a board member of the Pension Research Council of the Whar- ton School. He is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and holds an M.S. in labor studies from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Carl T. Camden is Executive Vice President of Kelly Services, Inc., where he overseas planning, development, and execution of the company’s mar- keting strategy and marketing business plan. He is also responsible for the company’s government and public affairs positions and manages cus- tomer relations with corporate accounts. He has served on the Advisory Committee on Employee Welfare and Pension BeneWts and the Chicago Federal Reserve’s Labor Advisory Committee. He received a Ph.D. in communications from Ohio State University. Peter Cappelli is George W. Taylor Professor of Management and Director of the Center for Human Resources at the Wharton School of the Uni- versity of Pennyslvania. He is also a research associate at the NBER and codirector of the U.S.
  • Economist Letter to Congress on Need for Public Investment

    Economist Letter to Congress on Need for Public Investment

    April 6, 2021 Dear Senate Majority Leader Schumer, Senate Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and House Minority Leader McCarthy, With the recently passed rescue package now providing additional relief and stimulus to families in the United States, policymakers have an historic opportunity to make long-overdue public investments in physical and care infrastructure to boost economic growth and productivity. The share of our Gross Domestic Product invested in federally funded research and development has fallen from around 2 percent in 1960 to just 0.6 percent today; this means less knowledge-creation, fewer good jobs, and a harder time boosting employment in new sectors. Research—and common sense—tell us that this disinvestment is damaging for U.S. communities and our economy as older infrastructure depreciates, and economic and social challenges go unaddressed. This government disinvestment has also placed the United States at an extreme competitive disadvantage in relation to other countries. Among OECD countries, the United States ranks 22nd in government investment as a percentage of GDP. And female labor force participation has been largely in decline since 1999, in contrast to rising rates in other OECD countries that invest more heavily in care infrastructure. In addition to federal research investments, physical infrastructure needs must be addressed. The private sector alone is not capable of making the large-scale investments needed to address the overlapping structural challenges currently facing the country, including: ● The climate crisis, which poses an existential threat to humans across the globe, as well as largely unaccounted-for risks to our economy; ● Structural racism and discrimination against Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities in the labor market and throughout the U.S.
  • The 1981 Budget – Facts & Fallacies Tuesday September 27Th 2011 The

    The 1981 Budget – Facts & Fallacies Tuesday September 27Th 2011 The

    The 1981 Budget – Facts & Fallacies Tuesday September 27th 2011 The Grocers’ Hall, Princes Street, London EC2 Session One: Emerging from the 1970s.1 PETER JAY Right, my lords, ladies, and gentlemen I hope you are now in the mood, so let’s get on with it. First of all, the boilerplate − the rules of the game. They are very simple. We are in the business of making history. You, the witnesses, will tell it like it was, and the Churchill Archives Centre will take it all down and may give it in evidence against you at any time that suits them. No one else is allowed to record anything that is said, but you are allowed to write notes. If there is time, and if I feel like it, questions may be taken from the floor at the end. Those contributing from the floor must – or this is what I’m told – say who they are for the record, and anyone who speaks must sign the Archives consent form, spare copies of which Andrew Riley has at this moment. I’m not sure what sanctions there are for anyone who speaks and then refuses to sign, but, I imagine, intense academic odium. We are, in every sense, on the record. We are not, repeat not, on Chatham House rules. Speakers will have the chance to edit their transcripts but it will all be published and anyone may quote what anyone else has said. So, ladies and gentlemen, you have been warned. The title of this session is ‘Emerging from the 1970s’ or, as I would impartially put it, ‘How the legacy was lost’.
  • Growing the Wealth How Government Encourages Broad-Based Inclusive Capitalism

    Growing the Wealth How Government Encourages Broad-Based Inclusive Capitalism

    EMBARGOED—NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR CITATION Growing the Wealth How Government Encourages Broad-Based Inclusive Capitalism David Madland and Karla Walter April 2013 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG EMBARGOED—NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR CITATION Growing the Wealth How Government Encourages Broad-Based Inclusive Capitalism David Madland and Karla Walter April 2013 Cover photo: Airline workers celebrate receipt of $111 million in profit-sharing checks Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2007, at Houston’s Bush Intercontinental Airport. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan) EMBARGOED—NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR CITATION Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 Inclusive capitalism 101 11 History of American policies promoting inclusive capitalism 21 Policy mechanisms 41 Conclusion EMBARGOED—NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR CITATION Introduction and summary American companies use a variety of financial incentives, from broad-based profit sharing and stock options to worker cooperatives and employee stock ownership plans, to reward their employees with a portion of the wealth those workers help generate. This kind of compensation goes well beyond simply paying wages or providing individual incentives, but rather involves granting workers ownership stakes in the company or a share of its profits based on workers’ collective perfor- mance—a concept we describe as inclusive capitalism. Inclusive capitalism, when partnered with democratic workplace practices, has a proven record of helping workers and businesses alike in a myriad of ways. Additionally, it is an economic philosophy that can draw bipartisan support. Yet policy to advance inclusive capitalism has not been part of the national dialogue for quite some time. The purpose of this report is to change this dynamic and jump-start a policy con- versation aimed at promoting inclusive capitalism.
  • A Climate Chronology Sharon S

    A Climate Chronology Sharon S

    Landscape of Change by Jill Pelto A Climate Chronology Sharon S. Tisher, J.D. School of Economics and Honors College University of Maine http://umaine.edu/soe/faculty-and-staff/tisher Copyright © 2021 All Rights Reserved Sharon S. Tisher Foreword to A Climate Chronology Dr. Sean Birkel, Research Assistant Professor & Maine State Climatologist Climate Change Institute School of Earth and Climate Sciences University of Maine March 12, 2021 The Industrial Revolution brought unprecedented innovation, manufacturing efficiency, and human progress, ultimately shaping the energy-intensive technological world that we live in today. But for all its merits, this transformation of human economies also set the stage for looming multi-generational environmental challenges associated with pollution, energy production from fossil fuels, and the development of nuclear weapons – all on a previously unimaginable global scale. More than a century of painstaking scientific research has shown that Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are warming as a result of human activity, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal, and natural gas) with the attendant atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other * greenhouse gases. Emissions of co-pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), toxic metals, and volatile organic compounds, also degrade air quality and cause adverse human health impacts. Warming from greenhouse-gas emissions is amplified through feedbacks associated with water vapor, snow and sea-ice