Proposal to Let Bosses Keep Workers’ Tips Provokes Investigation

tipped-wages-protest

Labor activists drop a banner and stage a protest in front of the Department of Labor, February 5, 2018.

Trump labor officials sparked outrage late last year by proposing a reform that would allow bosses to pocket their employees’ tips. But even these unabashedly anti-labor labor officials were apparently too embarrassed to reveal just how much this rule change would harm restaurant servers and other tipped workers.

According to a Bloomberg exposé, the Department “shelved” its own economic analysis of the proposal when the numbers indicated workers could lose billions of dollars in income. That cowardly maneuver has turned up the klieg lights on this whole nefarious, industry-driven effort. Under pressure from labor activists, the Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector General has just launched an audit of the rulemaking process.

The Institute for Policy Studies, the National Employment Law Project, and numerous other groups filed letters urging the Department of Labor to immediately withdraw the proposal. If the Department does not take this action, the pro-worker groups are demanding that the public be allowed to weigh in on the matter after the audit is completed.

Before the official public comment period closed on February 5, the Department of Labor received about 215,000 comment letters, with the vast majority in opposition to the proposal. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which advocates for better working conditions for restaurant workers, also organized a protest outside the Department’s headquarters where a banner was hung off the side of the building with the slogan “Trump Don’t Steal Our Tips.”

“The Department of Labor should be focused on improving tipped workers’ economic security,” wrote Institute for Policy Studies Director John Cavanagh in the organization’s public comment letter. “And yet by abolishing the regulation affirming that tips are the property of the employee who earned them, the Department would make these workers, who are primarily women and people of color, even more vulnerable to exploitation.”

The Economic Policy Institute estimates the proposal would result in employers taking $ 5.8 billion in tips from workers. This would be a severe blow in an industry where abuse is already rampant. Employers of tipped workers are among the worst offenders in minimum wage violations, especially due to the subminimum tipped wage. Employers who pay a subminimum wage ($ 2.13 at the federal level) are technically required to ensure that tips bring employee wages up to at least the full minimum wage, but difficulties in enforcement result in high noncompliance rates.

The National Restaurant Association is attempting to frame the proposed rule as an initiative to allow for tip pooling to end pay disparities between the front and back of the house in restaurants. But there’s no guarantee tips stay in the hands of workers — whether they work in the front or the back of the house.

The language in the proposal suggests that employers could allocate tips to make capital improvements or lower menu prices, which the Department of Labor claims could have “potential benefits to employees and the economy overall.” This is just “bogus trickledown theory,” IPS Director Cavanagh wrote. “It’s designed to distract attention from a rule that would clearly lead to even more severe exploitation of tipped workers.”

By burying their internal economic analysis, Labor Department officials may have shot themselves in the foot, suggests Judy Conti of the National Employment Law Project. In an interview with the publication Law 360, Conti said the proposal could be “very vulnerable” to a legal challenge if the Labor Department finalizes it without publishing an underlying economic analysis on the costs and benefits.

The post Proposal to Let Bosses Keep Workers’ Tips Provokes Investigation appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/J2tPQJgKK0A/

Donald Trump Is Playing ‘Bad Cop’ With His Extremist Budget Proposal

aca-death-panel

(Photo: Shutterstock)

An ambitious opening bid is a basic tactic of negotiation, basic enough that Donald Trump (or his ghostwriter, at least) wrote about it in The Art of the Deal: “My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing … Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want.”

Trump’s draconian budget proposal has all the signs of a gambit designed to get what Trump, and his negotiating partners in Congress, really want, which is a slightly less draconian budget. So it’s cold comfort to its intended targets – the poor, the sick, many in rural red states Trump won – that the budget plan won’t pass in its current form. No president’s budget plan ever does. “Dead on arrival” is how John McCain described it, though his objection was that it does not shift enough money from welfare recipients to defense contractors.

Make no mistake: Trump’s budget will be horrific no matter what form it takes in an eventual appropriations bill. Some of the highlights – these are things the White House sees fit to brag about – include cutting children’s health insurance, disability insurance, farm aid, food stamps, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the coup de grace: halving Medicaid spending by over $ 600bn.

This is a betrayal of Trump’s campaign promise, to working class voters who will bear the brunt of these cuts, not to touch Medicaid. It’s made possible by our lack of universal healthcare, instead of which we have a patchwork of targeted health programs for those who can’t or mostly don’t vote – children and poor people – and are thus politically easy to cut.

Congressional Republicans are already feigning shock at some of the more egregious cuts Trump has in mind, including money for cancer and Alzheimer’s research, and Meals on Wheels, calling them “a bridge too far”; elderly people, after all, actually do vote. Don’t be fooled, though. The same lawmakers fanning themselves and reaching for the smelling salts have been pushing the same austerity program for decades. Cutting Medicaid is something Paul Ryan said he’s been dreaming of since he was “drinking at a keg”, while Mitch McConnell has complained that Americans are “doing too good with food stamps, Social Security, and all the rest”. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Endowment for the Arts have been Republican targets for elimination since the 80s.

Read the full article on The Guardian.

 

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/pSQ-vMQ4Dug/

Trump’s Budget Proposal Is a Moral Atrocity

Since the election, many of us have wondered: Could the new administration really be the caricature of callousness we feared it would be? The day Trump unveiled his budget proposal, we had our definitive answer.

It could be, and it is.

Once upon a time, the general-turned-president Dwight Eisenhower issued a famous warning: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” At stake is not the nation’s “money alone,” the former World War II commander observed, but “the hopes of its children.”

If that’s true, the Trump budget proposal is a colossal theft of hope. It proposes to buy guns, warships, and bombers at the expense of almost everything else — including the planet. It’s the starkest grab from butter to give to guns since World War II.

Salting the Wounds of Working People

The proposal’s centerpiece is a nearly unprecedented military spending spree, raising the Pentagon’s base budget $ 54 billion over where it was last year.

That increase steals directly from much cheaper programs to provide meals for poor children and the elderly, as well as from medical research, affordable housing, and — ironically for a president that called himself “Mr. Infrastructure” — all the agencies that fund infrastructure. It would completely eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, which costs each American taxpayer less than a pack of gum but serves every district in the country, in a seemingly transparent effort to stifle dissent among the artists, librarians, and writers who build our cultural democracy.

In cut after cut, the proposal pours salt in the wounds of the very working people Trump pledged to help.

The sadistic slashes include cutting job training and safeguards to ensure that factories and mines are safe for workers. Funding for the economic development of rural communities, including in Trump-friendly Appalachia, is cut deeply, and so are funds for distressed “inner cities” — each of which Trump has claimed to be a champion of.

Desperately needed funds for public schools will be funneled away to unaccountable private and charter schools. Rent and heating assistance for poor families is also on the chopping block.

These cuts to vital domestic programs come on top of years of deep cuts they’ve already endured. Leaving people in rural areas and distressed cities struggling without rent, heat, food, and good public schools — while tearing families apart with new resources for deportation — will leave nothing left for an overblown military or domestic militarized police forces to defend.

Trump’s budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, has defended his draconian cuts to safety net programs by saying we should only pay for programs that work. Feeding poor kids, he claims, hasn’t helped them do better in school, so those programs should be cut.

But that standard doesn’t square at all with the proposal’s call to increase the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters we’ll be buying. The F-35 jet program is the most expensive weapon system ever devised, with the total cost of the program estimated at more than the GDP of Australia. Yet every few months during the many years it hasn’t been flying — and while its costs have been rising — we get news of something else on this plane that doesn’t work, and that will slow down its ever-receding timeline.

Gutting Diplomacy and Starving the Hungry

Yet not even shredding what remains of the social safety net is enough to balance out Trump’s massive proposed gift to the military-industrial complex. Also targeted for elimination are America’s diplomatic corps and foreign aid programs.

The extra money for the military will be partly taken out of the State Department, which would lose fully 28 percent of its budget. With Trump gutting U.S. diplomacy, ratcheting up military spending, and appointing military men to top national security posts, that would virtually guarantee the triumph of war over diplomacy in future foreign policy decisions.

Meanwhile, Trump’s evisceration of foreign aid programs would prove to an already skeptical world that the U.S. government really doesn’t care about starving children or women dying in childbirth.

The cuts come as the UN warns that 20 million people are at risk of starvation, as famines sweep across several countries in Africa and the Middle East. One of those countries is Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest, where the U.S. is backing a Saudi Arabian war and blockade. Thousands of Yemeni children are now at risk of dying of starvation, alongside millions more in Somalia, South Sudan, and northeastern Nigeria.

The most shocking part?

Even now, before these proposed cuts, we spend less than one-fifth of 1 percent of our national income on foreign aid. That barely amounts to a rounding error in the Pentagon budget. Slashing that tiny sliver of foreign aid will do nothing to improve the most powerful military in human history, but it’ll do much to destroy the lives of some of the most vulnerable children on earth.

Vandalizing the Planet

The Trump budgeteers have also taken special care to target virtually all federal programs that are working to avoid the worst ravages of the most serious existential threat facing humanity: climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency alone faces a 31 percent budget cut. Those cuts are carefully designed to incapacitate the agency and prevent it from carrying out its mission of protecting our air, our water, and — critically — our most vulnerable people.

They include a complete elimination of climate change funding, including for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. They would also abolish the Environmental Justice program, which provides much-needed grants to communities of color and low-income communities dealing with disparate environmental impacts — a gratuitous cut that has no obvious purpose other than pandering to racists.

The EPA’s Office of Research and Development would see fully half of its funding eliminated as well, in a blatant continuation of the administration’s war on science and facts.

On the local level, bipartisan-supported programs to restore regional watersheds are also in danger. The budget would eliminate federal funding for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, for example. Restoration investments for these water sources more than pay off in the form of healthier residents, fisheries, and tourism, but the administration would do away with them.

At the global level, meanwhile, the Green Climate Fund — which the UN set up to help poorer countries develop cleaner energy sources and adapt to climate change caused by richer nations — stands to lose $ 2 billion in outstanding pledges if the U.S. stops funding it. (Under Obama, by comparison, the U.S. spent around $ 2.6 billion in international climate finance in 2015 alone — including $ 500 million for the Green Climate Fund.)

Importantly, defunding international climate finance would confirm that the Trump administration intends to default on its agreements as part of the Paris Climate Accords, regardless of whether it eventually decides to formally withdraw from the pact.

Global climate action will continue regardless — with China, India, and other countries well placed to eclipse the U.S. in developing the new technologies around which the economy of the future will be built.

But removing climate finance will irreparably harm some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, who are disproportionately affected by climate change. Withdrawing funding for people at risk of drought and flash floods and disappearing coastal cities is a huge injustice, given the major role that the U.S. played in causing climate change.

In short, these environmental cuts are an act of planetary vandalism by a billionaire president, backed by the oil industry shills, climate denialists, and 1 percenters stacked into his cabinet.

Making the Opioid Crisis Worse

If there’s one winner in this budget besides the Pentagon, it’s the militarization of our southern border.

The Trump administration has requested $ 4 billion to begin work on a solid, concrete border wall estimated to cost between $ 8 million to $ 25 million per mile. If it extends to the full 1,950 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, it could cost up to $ 50 billion to complete. Along with a draconian deportation push that will devastate families across the country, Trump calls the wall a necessary measure against “bad hombres” and “drug lords.”

Yet most drugs entering the country aren’t carried through the desert by migrants. Instead, they enter the U.S. by the ton using other air, sea, and land routes.

On land, they tend to come through existing checkpoints hidden in vehicles, or underground tunnels — with the latter capable of moving tons of drugs around the clock. On sea, the latest innovation is narco-submarines, which can carry 6-12 tons per shipment. By air, traffickers have used everything from catapults to ultralights, and now drones. If anything, Trump’s absurd investment in an opaque wall will only incentivize traffickers to invest in more countermeasures like these.

Trump has said this is a major initiative to combat the opioid crisis by restricting the flow of heroin. In fact, the major driver of opioid deaths isn’t heroin, but the synthetic analog called fentanyl — which can be 50 times more powerful than heroin. Traffickers are adulterating heroin with the cheaper fentanyl to stretch their profits and unsuspecting users are overdosing on the mixture at an alarming rate.

On the off chance the wall is successful in reducing the heroin supply, it is almost certain that traffickers will resort to adding more fentanyl into the mixture, thus leading to many more overdoses.

False Populism

Budgets are moral documents, and the moral atrocities of Trump’s budget speak for themselves. They echo longstanding calls from conservative congressional leaders to dismantle social programs and dramatically increase Pentagon and border spending, only now with the call of “America first.”

As the betrayals in this budget request make utterly clear, this is false populism.

Along with our allies, we intend to bust it. We believe that America, and indeed the world, is better off when we listen to the needs of our families, communities, and the planet over the drumbeat of war and hate.

As Eisenhower said, it’s not just money alone that’s at stake. It’s everything we value.

 

Sign up for our newsletter to receive updates on all of the ways we’re fighting with our allies for equity, peace, and the protection of our planet.

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is the oldest multi-issue progressive think tank in Washington, DC. IPS has been at the forefront of research and action for the civil rights, anti-war, feminist, environmental, and global justice movements in the U.S. and around the globe. The Institute has partnered with grassroots advocacy organizations to provide public scholarship in support of organizing efforts to build a more just and peaceful world.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/I3OwWbXunbw/

The CEO Pay Tax Break in the Republican Health Care Proposal

Media Contacts:
Sarah Anderson, report author, sarah@ips-dc.org, 202 787 5227
Domenica Ghanem, media manager, domenica@ips-dc.org, 202 787 5205

Washington, D.C. — A new Institute for Policy Studies report is the first to calculate how much American taxpayers have been saving from an Obamacare CEO pay reform that Republicans are proposing to eliminate.

Under Obamacare, leading health insurance corporations could deduct no more than $ 500,000 off their federal income taxes for the cost of each employee’s total compensation. The American Health Care Act, set to be voted on this Thursday in the U.S. House of Representatives, would eliminate this cap.

The IPS report, The CEO Pay Tax Break in the Republican Health Care Proposal, analyzes taxpayer savings from the Obamacare reform at the five largest U.S. publicly held health insurance companies in 2015.

KEY FINDINGS:

  • The ACA deductibility limits generated an estimated $ 92 million in additional public revenue in 2015 from just these five companies (Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealth). On average, these corporations owed an extra $ 3.5 million in taxes per executive.
  • This $ 92 million in savings from limiting pay-related deductions for just 26 executives is the equivalent of the average annual ACA premium subsidies for 28,500 Americans. It also far exceeds the cost of some of the programs President Trump is proposing to cut, such as the $ 70 million Emergency Refugee Assistance fund.
  • The insurer that paid the most in federal taxes associated with their top five executives in 2015 was Cigna. The company paid an estimated $ 33 million more than they would’ve if the Obamacare deductibility cap had not been in place.
  • These figures provide an incomplete picture of potential taxpayer savings. The deductibility cap covers all employees, but pay information is available only for each firm’s top five executives. Moreover, in 2015 the cap did not apply to $ 41 million in “grandfathered” stock options gains.
  • The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that eliminating the ACA cap would cost $ 400 million over nine years. The IPS calculations suggest this is very conservative. The CEOs of these five firms already hold outstanding stock options worth $ 94 million at current market values. Under the ACA cap, these firms would owe $ 94 million when these options become taxable. Without the cap, they would likely be fully deductible.

“Ordinary taxpayers should not have to subsidize excessive CEO pay,” says report author and veteran executive compensation analyst Sarah Anderson. “Instead of re-introducing this perverse loophole for health insurance companies, lawmakers should expand the Obamacare deductibility cap to all major U.S. corporations.”

The report notes that legislation to eliminate the “CEO Bonus Loophole” for all firms has been introduced by Democratic lawmakers in both houses (S. 82 and H.R. 399). These bills would save taxpayers an estimated $ 50 billion over 10 years.

Link to full report, including detailed data and methodology information: The CEO Pay Tax Break in the Republican Health Care Proposal

The Institute for Policy Studies (www.IPS-dc.org) is a 54-year-old multi-issue research center that has conducted path-breaking research on executive compensation for more than 20 years. The Institute’s first analysis of the Obamacare CEO pay reform, released in 2014, has received widespread media coverage, including in the Washington Post, LA Times, Fortune, CNBC, Reuters, WSJ Marketwatch, Marketplace, and the Intercept.

IPS also manages the website Inequality.org, which serves as a portal into all things related to the income and wealth gaps that so divide us. Twitter: @inequalityorg

For more information, contact:
Sarah Anderson, report author and Global Economy Project Director, Institute for Policy Studies, sarah@ips-dc.org, tel: 202 787 5227
Domenica Ghanem, Media Manager, press@ips-dc.org202-787-5205

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/dkwdvfR7TrA/

The White House Budget Proposal Doesn’t Add Up

Businessman thumbs his nose

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

The political theater that passes for serious policy debate is about to run into an unfortunate reality as Donald Trump’s budget plan comes face to face with its arch-nemesis: arithmetic.

It’s impossible to cut taxes, increase spending, and balance the budget. That’s not political bluster. That’s math.

Throughout the campaign and since, Trump promised to invest in infrastructure, pass an enormous tax cut, boost military spending, cut “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and protect Social Security and Medicare — and, of course, balance the budget.

This rhetoric has been remarkably effective, the presidential equivalent of offering free ponies for everyone — but even less practical.

Working in Trump’s favor, however, is that many Americans believe things about the federal budget that are simply not true. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.

According to public opinion polls, Americans believe nearly a third of the budget goes to international aid. In reality, it’s less than 1 percent.

survey of Fox News viewers from 2013 showed nearly half believed most federal debt could be eliminated by “cutting waste and fraud.” It can’t.

Out of a nearly $ 4 trillion annual federal budget, about $ 3.4 trillion is spent on things that either can’t be cut or Trump has promised he doesn’t want to cut. This includes Social Security, Medicare, military spending, and interest on the national debt.

That leaves just over half a trillion dollars to cover all non-military discretionary spending. It’s a lot of money, to be sure, but a small proportion of overall spending. This is the part Trump is proposing to cut.

What’s included in this side of the budget?

To name just a few things: The benefits that help veterans get back on their feet after getting wounded. The nutrition assistance that helps babies born to low-income mothers. The science research that will mitigate the next infectious disease outbreak (remember Zika?).

The list could go on for paragraphs, each a small line item on a big budget list, but each incredibly important to enabling a happy, healthy life in modern society.

Cutting programs the public depends on in an effort (real or imagined) to balance the budget isn’t new. Austerity has been in the air in the United States since Reagan and has taken Europe by storm, too. It’s the justification behind cutting programs that help the poor while passing tax cuts that exclusively benefit the rich.

It is, in short, part of a remarkably effective effort to redistribute wealth — upwards.

Consider, for example, Trump’s tax plan.

If the president were serious about balancing the budget, he’d be quite concerned about how much money the Internal Revenue Service collected each year. He’d know if that number went down, it would reduce the effectiveness of his spending cuts.

He is, to put it politely, not concerned about this.

As the Citizens for Tax Justice, a D.C.-based research group, points out, Trump’s tax plan nearly exclusively benefits the wealthy while raising the taxes of low- and moderate-income families. The budgetary impacts of his tax cuts total about a half trillion dollars a year — the same amount as the entire non-discretionary, non-military federal budget.

In other words, Trump’s tax plan is a proverbial one-handed middle finger to the working class. And his spending cuts represent his other hand making the same gesture.

While repeated rhetorical distractions may succeed in sidetracking his audience, Trump can’t use his impressive oratory skills to overcome basic mathematics.

Josh Hoxie directs the Project on Taxation and Opportunity at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/nLxNeLU-hEM/

Historic CEO Pay Tax Proposal Passes in Portland

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Washington, DC, December 7, 2016) The city council in Portland, Oregon, adopted a new local tax rule today that sets a landmark precedent for cracking down on excessive CEO pay.

In a 3-1 vote, the council agreed to add a surtax on the city’s existing business license tax for firms that pay their CEOs more than 100 times what their typical worker receives. This will be the nation’s first tax penalty for extreme CEO-worker pay gaps.

The city has identified more than 500 corporations that do enough business in Portland to be affected by the surtax, including many that regularly dominate the highest-paid CEO lists, such as Oracle, Honeywell, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and General Electric. The measure will generate up to $ 3.5 million in annual revenue to support public services.

“This path-breaking policy tackles a key driver of our growing inequality,” notes IPS veteran executive compensation analyst Sarah Anderson. “I predict this will spark a wave of similar actions, much like the local living wage campaigns that have spread like wildfire across the country.”

According to the Portland revenue department, most large U.S. cities have tax structures that allow for a similar CEO pay surtax.

The Portland proposal could also build momentum for federal action. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA) and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) have introduced the CEO Accountability and Responsibility Act (H.R. 6242), which would increase federal tax rates on companies with CEO-worker pay ratios of more than 100-to-1. Polls show public outrage over CEO pay cuts across the political spectrum.

In assessing the surtax, the Portland government will make use of CEO-worker pay ratio data that will soon be available under a provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Publicly held corporations will be required to report the ratio between their CEO and median worker pay to the Securities and Exchange Commission, beginning with 2017 figures.

“We may be at the dawn of a new ‘pay ratio politics,’” says IPS associate fellow Sam Pizzigati, the author of The Rich Don’t Always Win. “Corporate pay policies have been driving our income inequality. With annual pay ratio disclosure, we can start insisting that corporations that do the most to make this inequality worse face real consequences for the damage they’re doing.”

Available for comment:

Sarah Anderson, sarah@ips-dc.org202 787 5227,

Anderson is a co-editor of Inequality.org at the Institute for Policy Studies and has been the lead author on all 23 of the Institute’s annual Executive Excess reports. Her executive compensation analysis has been featured recently in Politico, a New York Times editorial and columnVox, the Washington Post, and Bloomberg.

Sam Pizzigati, editor@toomuchonline.org

Pizzigati is an IPS associate fellow and co-editor of Inequality.org. His most recent book is The Rich Don’t Always Win: The triumph over plutocracy that created the American middle class, 1900-1970 (Seven Stories Press).

Commissioner Steve Novick, the champion of the Portland city council proposal, can be reached through his aide, Katie Shriver, 503-823-3005katie.shriver@portlandoregon.gov.

Additional resources:

More Information:

Sarah Anderson, sarah@ips-dc.org(202) 787 5227

Domenica Ghanem, press@ips-dc.org, (202)-787-5205

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) is a multi-issue research center that has conducted path-breaking research on executive compensation for more than 20 years. IPS also provides a constant stream of inequality analysis and solutions through Inequality.org and related weekly newsletter.

The post Historic CEO Pay Tax Proposal Passes in Portland appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/OoQO6KIGUys/

Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” Proposal is Anything But

paul-ryan-economic-agenda

(Photo: Flickr / Tony Alter)

We just knew that House Speaker Paul Ryan’s latest tax reform proposal was going to be bad for working families.

Year after year, after all, Ryan has been bringing forward – in the name of fiscal conservatism – some variation of a plan to take from the poor and give to the rich. Now we have Ryan’s 2016 edition. Low and behold, this year’s plan, adorned with the snazzy title “A Better Way,” is … simply terrible.

Citizens for Tax Justice just released an in-depth analysis of the new House Republican plan. The main takeaway: This year’s plan would give an average annual tax break of nearly $ 800,000 to the top 0.1 percent. And when cuts to government programs are factored in, the group calculates, the bottom 95 percent of us would be “net losers.”

And the national debt that so-called deficit hawks profess to care so deeply about? That would go up another $ 4 trillion under the new Ryan plan.

Read the full article on U.S. News and World Report’s website. 

The post Paul Ryan’s “A Better Way” Proposal is Anything But appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Josh Hoxie directs the Project on Opportunity and Taxation at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/ao2OBCcodWM/

IMF Proposal on Greece Sets Up Battle With Germany – Wall Street Journal


Wall Street Journal
IMF Proposal on Greece Sets Up Battle With Germany
Wall Street Journal
BERLIN—The International Monetary Fund is demanding that Europe free Greece from all payments on its bailout loans until 2040, in the opening bid of a struggle that pits IMF math against German muscle. A new IMF proposal shared with Europe late last …
The IMF Is Playing Hardball Over Debt Relief for GreeceFortune
Why the IMF must walk away from GreeceKathimerini
IMF Proposes Greece Makes No Debt Repayments Until 2040Greek Reporter
Barron’s (blog)
all 142 news articles »

|||||||http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNH26uI4PP0vPYPusznQceWS8Va49A&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52779106003829&ei=0Ss8V6DLG4izwAGrqpzYDA&url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/imf-wants-eurozone-debt-relief-for-greece-until-2040-1463468493

Administration announces proposal to clarify availability of Health Insurance Marketplace coverage to workers eligible for COBRA

The Obama administration today announced updates to model notices informing workers of their eligibility to continue health-care coverage through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The updates make it clear to workers that if they are eligible for COBRA continuation coverage when leaving a job, they may choose to instead purchase coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.|||||||http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ebsa/ebsa20140750.htm