Report: Reversing Inequality

While there is now widespread understanding that extreme income and wealth inequality is growing and has negative impacts on society, most proposed solutions fail to address deeper systemic drivers. While technological change and globalization have supercharged inequalities, they are not the primary drivers.

This report, released with the Next Systems Project, offers a more critical explanation for extreme inequality and the ways in which the rules governing the economy have been distorted by power differentials and political factors. These rules –including tax, trade, regulation, public subsidies, and expenditures – have been tipped to advantage asset owners over wage earners, and transnational corporations over domestically-rooted enterprises. As a result, we are living with a particular flavor of a market economy – hyper-extractive monopoly capitalism – that is transferring wealth from workers and communities upwards to a small segment of the population.

Another driver of inequality is systemic racism and a legacy of discrimination in wages and wealth-building. These forces are impossible to separate and disentangle from other drivers of inequality. Policy interventions that don’t incorporate an understanding of systemic racism will fail to reverse or compound existing inequalities. And false solutions like a New Deal 2.0 program, including government stimulus packages, fail to recognize the ecological limits to traditional growth and the need to operate within the earth’s carrying capacity. The only path forward is building resilient communities that can bounce back from environmental and economic challenges.

This paper describes a full menu of “interventions” to reduce income and wealth inequality and address some of the systemic drivers of inequality. They fall into four categories, including policies that:

  • Lift the Floor, establishing minimal standard of living and safety nets
  • Level the Playing Field, by ensuring investments in public goods and elimination of the distorting influences of power and privilege
  • Deconcentrate Wealth, through interventions that directly reduce the concentration of wealth and power
  • Rewire the System, to undercut inequality drivers

One way forward is to build power and win some of these rule changes by focusing on “pressure points” that can accelerate the transition to the next system. This will require game changing campaigns that accomplish three things:

  • Reduce the concentration of wealth and power, break up institutions, or redistribute wealth and power.
  • Open up economic opportunities for those excluded in the current system.
  • Capture the imagination of a wide constituency of people willing to fight for policy change.

Three examples in the paper are:

  • Dividends for all: linking common wealth sources of revenue to programs that expand economic stability
  • Taxing excessive carbon solution and directing revenue to investments in renewable energy, green infrastructure and just transition efforts.
  • Expand tuition-free higher education by creating education trust funds funded by progressive taxes on wealth.

Read the full report here [PDF].
Download Quick Takeaways from the report here.
Find shareable graphics here.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/j0CKhTZnZOM/

Report: How States Can Boost Renewables With Benefits for All

Given the current assault on responsible climate policy at the federal level, innovative state and local actions will be critical if we are to achieve a just transition to a sustainable economy. IPS is surveying the array of measures that can accelerate the rapid transition from fossil fuels to clean and efficient alternatives in an equitable fashion. In this study, we focus in on one strategy: Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).  RPS require utilities to provide a growing share of electricity from solar and wind energy, and are a particularly promising policy option — especially if they increase the benefits of a clean energy transition for low-income families.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia already have RPS requirements, and eight other states have voluntary renewable energy goals. Building on this progress — by enacting RPS in additional states, tightening current standards, and making voluntary programs binding — would have significant environmental, economic, and social benefits:

KEY FINDINGS:

  • RPS expansion can significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The electric power generation sector accounts for nearly 30% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Since residential electricity usage currently makes up more than 37% of national utilities sales, RPS success will depend on dramatically expanding home-based solar energy options — especially for low-income households.
  • RPS expansion creates good jobs. Solar energy already accounts for nearly 43% of direct U.S. employment in electric power generation, even though it only makes up a tiny fraction of the energy we use to power our country.
  • Renewable energy wages are comparable to those in the fossil fuel industry. A typical wind turbine technician, for example, earns $ 25.50 an hour, significantly more than many fossil fuel occupations.
  • Expanding shared solar access advances justice and equity. Low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to live in poorly insulated homes with higher heating and cooling costs, which means they spend more of their income on electricity. A typical set of residential solar panels would meet more than half of an average low-income household’s electricity needs — which means cutting their electricity bill drastically.
  • Shared renewables can allow families and small businesses a stake in the renewable energy market. The U.S. electricity market was worth $ 391 billion in 2015. RPS can help keep more of this money in communities.

Drawing from successful state models, the report identifies the following key “best practice” elements of RPS and low-income solar access policies:

  1.      A sufficiently ambitious timetable.
  2.      No non-renewable or dirty power (nuclear energy, trash incineration, or biofuels) included in “renewables” definition.
  3.      A system of tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) to facilitate tracking.
  4.      Meaningful penalties for noncompliance.
  5.      Requirement to fund solar access for low-income households.
  6.      Incorporating a “green jobs” component into the low-income solar program.
  7.      Legislative provision for shared solar, which also incorporates funding for solar access for low-income communities (#5) and its related targeted hiring and training component (#6).

Read the full executive summary and report here [PDF].
Find sharable graphics and social media kit here.

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

New IPS Report Provides a Blueprint for States to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Trump Era

(Washington, D.C.) – Given the current assault on responsible climate policy at the federal level by the Trump administration, now more than ever, innovative state and local actions are needed to combat our climate crisis. Many states are already well on their way.

The new IPS report How States Can Boost Renewables With Benefits for All documents how increasing and expanding Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and distributed solar access to low-income households in states can help substantially reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The report also compiles existing state models for RPS expansion to create best practices blueprint for RPS legislation with dedicated funding for increased distributed solar access for low-income households.

“States and local governments can and must pick up the federal government’s slack in advancing an ambitious people’s climate agenda,” report author and IPS Climate Policy Director Basav Sen said. “Expanding access to solar to low-income communities and renters through programs like shared-solar is crucial since electric power generation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and the residential and commercial sectors are the two largest end-users of electricity sales by utilities. If we obtained all of our electricity from renewables, that would have a greater emissions impact than taking every single car in the U.S. off the road.

KEY FINDINGS:

  • RPS expansion creates good jobs. Solar energy already accounts for nearly 43% of direct U.S. employment in electric power generation, even though it only makes up a tiny fraction of the energy we use to power our country.
  • Renewable energy wages are comparable to those in the fossil fuel industry. A typical wind turbine technician, for example, earns $ 25.50 an hour, significantly more than many fossil fuel occupations.
  • Expanding shared solar access advances justice and equity. Low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to live in poorly insulated homes with higher heating and cooling costs, which means they spend more of their income on electricity. A typical set of residential solar panels would meet more than half of an average low-income household’s electricity needs — which means cutting their electricity bill drastically.
  • Shared renewables can allow families and small businesses a stake in the renewable energy market. The U.S. electricity market was worth $ 391 billion in 2015. RPS can help keep more of this money in communities.

Read more key findings and the full report at http://www.ips-dc.org/report-how-states-can-boost-renewables-with-benefits-for-all/.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/iRGK_8ToUl4/

Report: The Wall Street Bonus Pool and Low Wage Workers

 Wall Street banks handed out $ 23.9 billion in bonuses to their New York City-based employees last year, according to new figures from the New York State Comptroller. To put these figures in perspective, we’ve compared the Wall Street payout to low-wage workers’ earnings.

For full sources and methodology, download the full report [PDF].

Wall Street Bonuses v. Minimum Wage Earners

  • The total bonus pool for 177,000 Wall Street employees was 1.6 times the combined annual earnings of all 1,075,000 U.S. full-time minimum wage workers.
  • The average Wall Street bonus increased by 1 percent last year to $ 138,210. Since 1985, the nominal value of the average Wall Street bonus has increased 890 percent, whereas the minimum wage has risen only 116 percent.

The Race and Gender Divide

  • The much faster increase in Wall Street bonuses has contributed to racial and gender inequality, since workers at the bottom of the wage scale are predominantly people of color and female, whereas those in the financial industry’s upper echelons are overwhelmingly white and male.
  • At the five largest U.S. investment banks, the share of executives and top managers who are white ranges from 84-87 percent, and the share who are male ranges from 66-84 percent.
  • Only 44 percent of minimum wage workers are white and 37 percent are male.

Wall Street Bonuses v. Low-Wage Service Workers

  • The 2016 bonus pool held enough dollars to lift the pay of any one of these groups of low-wage workers up to $ 15 per hour:
  • all of the country’s 3.1 million restaurant servers and bartenders,
  • all 1.7 million home health and personal care aides, or
  • all 3.2 million fast food preparation and serving workers

For full sources and methodology, download the full report [PDF].

Sarah Anderson is the director of the Global Economy project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/7JAq83SZfAg/

NDWA and IPS to Release New Labor Trafficking Report at Public Panel Discussion, with Survivors

Media Contacts:
Marzena Zukowska, National Domestic Workers Alliance, marzena@domesticworkers.org, 872-216-3684
Domenica Ghanem, Institute for Policy Studies, domenica@ips-dc.org, 202-787-5205

Washington, DC — The National Domestic Workers Alliance and Institute for Policy Studies will release their new report The Human Trafficking of Domestic Workers in the United States: Findings from the Beyond Survival Campaign at a public panel discussion featuring labor trafficking survivors and immigrant worker rights organizers on March 13 at 12PM at their office in Washington DC. The panel will discuss the report’s findings, the impact of the Trump administration’s policies on labor trafficking survivors, and solutions policymakers should adopt to protect domestic workers. If you cannot attend in person, you can join our audio livestream here.

In a political climate where employers are encouraged to prey upon the most vulnerable among us and police are increasingly embroiled in immigrant enforcement, we anticipate that labor protections for trafficking survivors will only deteriorate. It is critical to learn from the experiences of domestic workers, like Shanti and Rosa, whose stories are featured in the report, and who have survived labor exploitation and human trafficking. Through their leadership, others experiencing similar abuse will be encouraged to break the silence. Policymakers must adopt the solutions developed by survivors to stop the exploitation of domestic workers and bring respect, recognition and dignity to this essential workforce.

WHO:              Labor trafficking survivors and domestic worker  organizers, Shanti and Rosa
Damayan Migrant Workers Association Organizer, Riya Ortiz
Report co-author and NDWA Advocacy Director, Sameera Hafiz will moderate

WHAT:            Findings from the Beyond Survival Campaign Report Release and panel discussion on the impact of Trump immigration enforcement policies on survivors of human trafficking

WHERE:         1301 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036 OR
Join our audio livestream

WHEN:           March 13, 2017, 12:00-1:30 PM

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/YPDFHI8_4i8/

Report: A Tale of Two Retirements

For release on December 15 at 7:00pm.

 This reporttwo-retirements-cover compares the retirement assets of top CEOs with those of all African-American, Latino, female-headed, and white working class households.

Find shareable graphics here.

Key findings:

Just 100 CEOs have company retirement funds worth $ 4.7 billion — a sum equal to the entire retirement savings of the 41 percent of U.S. families with the smallest nest eggs.

This $ 4.7 billion total is also equal to the entire retirement savings of the bottom:

  • 59 percent of African-American families
  • 75 percent of Latino families
  • 55 percent of female-headed households
  • 44 percent of white working class households

On average, the top 100 CEO nest eggs are large enough to generate for each of these executives a $ 253,088 monthly retirement check for the rest of their lives.

  • Ordinary workers with 401(k) plans had a median balance at the end of 2013 of $ 18,433, enough for a monthly retirement check of just $ 101.
  • Of workers 56-61 years old, 39 percent have no employer-sponsored retirement plan whatsoever and will likely depend entirely on Social Security, which pays an average benefit of $ 1,239 per month.

With nearly $ 3 billion in special tax-deferred accounts, Fortune 500 CEOs stand to gain enormously from Trump’s proposed tax cuts on top earners.

  • If President-elect Donald Trump succeeds in cutting the top marginal tax rate to 33 percent, Fortune 500 CEOs would save $ 196 million on the income taxes they would owe if they withdrew their tax-deferred funds.
  • These special executive deferred accounts are exempt from 401(k) contribution limits.
  • Michael Neidorff, the CEO of Centene, which specializes in providing health plans to Medicaid recipients, has nearly $ 140 million in his deferred compensation account, up 658 percent since the 2010 launch of Obamacare.

The retirement asset gap between CEOs mirrors the racial and gender divides among ordinary Americans.

  • The 10 white male CEOs with the largest retirement funds hold a combined $ 1.4 billion, more than eight times more than the 10 CEOs of color with the largest retirement assets and nearly five times as much as the top 10 female CEOs.

Read the full report here [PDF].

Use our social media kit to help spread the word.

The post Report: A Tale of Two Retirements appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Scott Klinger has worked in the arenas of corporate social responsibility, executive compensation, and corporate taxes for three decades.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/RhWL95p6VDU/

Report: Gilded Giving

For media inquires about this report, please contact Chuck Collins chuckcollins7@mac.com or Josh Hoxie Josh@ips-dc.org.

gilded-giving-cover

Gilded Giving: Top-Heavy Philanthropy in an Age of Extreme Inequality

Unprecedented levels of charitable giving in recent years mask a troubling trend. This report shows that charities are increasingly relying on larger and larger donations from smaller numbers of high-income, high-wealth donors. Meanwhile, they are receiving shrinking amounts of revenue from the vast population of donors at lower and middle-income levels. This trend mirrors the increasing concentration of wealth in larger society.

The report finds that this has significant implications for the practice of fundraising, the role of the independent nonprofit sector, and the health of our larger democratic civil society. The increasing power of a small number of donors also increases the potential for mission distortion.

This study tracks significant changes in philanthropic giving in recent years, puts forward a number of possible implications of these changes, and offers some solutions.

Key Findings:

  • Charitable contributions from donors at the top of the income and wealth ladder have increased significantly over the past decade. From 2003 to 2013, itemized charitable contributions from people making $ 500,000 or more—roughly the top one percent of income earners in the United States—increased by 57 percent. And itemized contributions from people making $ 10 million or more increased by almost double that rate—104 percent—over the same period.
  • The number of private grant-making foundations has shown similar dramatic growth. The number of grant-making foundations in the United States has doubled since 1993, from 43,956 to 67,736 in 2004, and to 86,726 in 2014. Between 2004 and 2014, the number of foundations increased 28 percent, and the amount of assets held in those foundations increased 35 percent.
  • Over the past ten years, charitable giving deductions from lower income donors have declined significantly, at almost the same rate that contributions from higher income donors have increased. While itemized charitable deductions from donors making $ 100,000 or more increased by 40 percent, itemized charitable deductions from donors making less than $ 100,000 declined by 34 percent.
  • The number of donors giving at typical donation levels has been steadily declining. According to one estimate, low-dollar and midrange donors to national public charities have declined by as much as 25 percent over the ten years from 2005 to 2015. These are the people who have traditionally made up the vast majority of donor files and lists for most national nonprofits since their inception.
  • The rate of decline in small-dollar donors correlates strongly with indicators of overall economic security in the United States, such as wages, employment, and homeownership rates. This correlation indicates that donor declines are likely due, in large part, to changing economic conditions.

Read the full report here [PDF].

Shareable Graphics:

guilded-giving-infographic-1guilded-giving-infographic-2

The post Report: Gilded Giving appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Chuck Collins is the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Helen Flannery is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Josh Hoxie is the director of the Project on Opportunity and Taxation at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/NS6Ri-jXDF8/

New IPS Report Warns of Increasingly Top-Heavy Philanthropy

For Release Wednesday, Nov. 16 at 7:30PM

Media Contacts:
Chuck Collins, chuck@ips-dc.org, 617-308-4433
Josh Hoxie, josh@ips-dc.org, 508-280-5005

A new report, “Gilded Giving: Top-Heavy Philanthropy in an Age of Extreme Inequality,” authored by Chuck Collins, Helen Flannery, and Josh Hoxie of the Institute for Policy Studies and Inequality.org, raises the specter of a philanthropic sector dominated by wealthy mega-donors and their foundations, and donor-advised funds.

“The growth of inequality is mirrored in philanthropy,” said report co-author Chuck Collins. “As wealth concentrates in fewer hands, so does philanthropic giving and power. We believe this poses considerable risks to both our independent sector and democracy.”

The report warns that unprecedented levels of charitable giving in recent years mask a troubling trend. Charities are increasingly relying on larger and larger donations from smaller numbers of high-income, high-wealth donors. Meanwhile, they are receiving shrinking amounts of revenue from the vast population of donors at lower and middle-income levels.

The report also finds that increasingly top-heavy giving has significant implications for the practice of fundraising, the role of the independent nonprofit sector, and the health of our larger democratic civil society.

Risks to charitable sector organizations include increased volatility and unpredictability in funding, making it more difficult to budget and forecast income into the future; an increased need to shift toward major donor cultivation; and an increased bias toward funding larger or heavily major-donor-directed boutique organizations and projects. The increasing power of a small number of donors also increases the potential for mission distortion.

Risks to the public include the rise of tax avoidance philanthropy, the warehousing of wealth in the face of urgent needs, self-dealing philanthropy, and the increasing use of philanthropy as an extension of power and privilege protection.

Key findings:

  • Charitable contributions from donors at the top of the income and wealth ladder have increased significantly over the past decade. From 2003 to 2013, itemized charitable contributions from people making $ 500,000 or more—roughly the top one percent of income earners in the United States—increased by 57 percent. And itemized contributions from people making $ 10 million or more increased by almost double that rate—104 percent—over the same period.
  • The number of private grant-making foundations has shown similar dramatic growth. The number of grant-making foundations in the United States has doubled since 1993, from 43,956 to 67,736 in 2004, and to 86,726 in 2014. Between 2004 and 2014, the number of foundations increased 28 percent and the amount of assets held in those foundations increased 35 percent.
  • Over the past ten years, charitable giving deductions from lower income donors have declined significantly, at almost the same rate that contributions from higher income donors have increased. While itemized charitable deductions from donors making $ 100,000 or more increased by 40 percent, itemized charitable deductions from donors making less than $ 100,000 declined by 34 percent.
  • The number of donors giving at typical donation levels has been steadily declining. According to one estimate, low-dollar and midrange donors to national public charities have declined by as much as 25 percent over the ten years from 2005 to 2015. These are the people who have traditionally made up the vast majority of donor files and lists for most national nonprofits since their inception.
  • The rate of decline in small-dollar donors correlates strongly with indicators of overall economic security in the United States, such as wages, employment, and homeownership rates. This correlation indicates that donor declines are likely due, in large part, to changing economic conditions.

“Since the last recession, the charitable sector has seen tremendous growth in giving,” said report co-author Helen Flannery. “That’s a good thing, in theory. But the growth is from donors at the top of the giving ladder, while giving from small and midlevel donors is steadily falling. And more and more giving is going into warehousing vehicles like foundations and donor-advised funds, instead of to charities on the ground.”

“The trends in philanthropy may be less visible than trends in income and wealth inequality, but they are following the same trajectory. Without intervention, these trends lead toward multi-generational wealth dynasties on one side and widespread austerity on the other,” added co-author Josh Hoxie.

The report tracks significant changes in philanthropic giving in recent years, puts forward a number of possible implications of these changes, and offers some solutions.

Read the full report here:  www.ips-dc.org/report-gilded-giving/

The post New IPS Report Warns of Increasingly Top-Heavy Philanthropy appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/b2I_5TDwelM/

Report: Ever-Growing Gap

growing-gap-report-cover

The Ever-Growing Gap: Failing to Address the Status Quo Will Drive the Racial Wealth Divide for Centuries to Come

To be released at 7:30 PM on August 8, 2016 

Racial and economic inequality are the most pressing social issues of our time. In the last decade, we have seen the catastrophic economic impact of the Great Recession and an ensuing recovery that has bypassed millions of Americans, especially households of color. This period of economic turmoil has been punctuated by civil unrest throughout the country in the wake of a series of high-profile African-American deaths at the hands of police. These senseless and violent events have not only given rise to the Black Lives Matter movement, they have also sharpened the nation’s focus on the inequities and structural barriers facing households of color.

However, even when these economic inequities do get attention, the focus is often on a single facet of the issue: income. The new report Ever-Growing Gap, published by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Corporation for Enterprise Development, focuses instead on a related but distinct facet of the issue: the essential role that wealth plays in achieving financial security and opportunity. It examines our country’s growing racial wealth divide and the trajectory of that divide.

This growing wealth divide is no accident. It is the result of public policy designed to widen the economic chasm between white households and households of color and between the wealthy and everyone else. In the absence of significant reforms, the racial wealth divide—and overall wealth inequality—are on track to become even wider in the future.

Find shareable graphics here.

Key Findings:

  • Over the past 30  years the average wealth of white families has grown by 84%—1.2 times the rate of growth for the Latino population and three times the rate of growth for the black population. If that continues, the next three decades would see the average wealth of white households increase by over $ 18,000 per year, while Latino and Black households would see their respective wealth increase by only $ 2,250 and $ 750 per year.
  • Over the past 30 years, the wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans has grown by an average of 736%—10 times the rate of growth for the Latino population and 27 times the rate of growth for the black population. Today, the wealthiest 100 members of the Forbes list alone own about as much wealth as the entire African American population combined, while the wealthiest 186 members of the Forbes 400 own as much wealth as the entire Latino population combined. If average Black households had enjoyed the same growth rate as the Forbes 400 over the past 30 years, they would have an extra $ 475,000 in wealth today. Latino households would have an extra $ 386,000.
  • By 2043—the year in which it is projected that people of color will make up a majority of the U.S. population— the wealth divide between white families and Latino and black families will have doubled, on average, from about $ 500,000 in 2013 to over $ 1 million.
  • If average black family wealth continues to grow at the same pace it has over the past three decades, it would take black families 228 years to amass the same amount of wealth white families have today. That’s just 17 years shorter than the 245-year span of slavery in this country. For the average Latino family, it would take 84 years to amass the same amount of wealth White families have today—that’s the year 2097.

Addressing this growing crisis:

  • Conduct an evidence-based, government-wide audit of federal policies to understand the role current policies play in perpetuating the racial wealth divide
  • Fix unfair, upside-down tax incentives to ensure households of color also receive support to build wealth
  • Address the distorting influence of concentrated wealth at the top through the expansion of existing progressive taxes and the exploration of a dedicated wealth tax

Read the full report here [PDF].

Find shareable graphics here.

The post Report: Ever-Growing Gap appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Chuck Collins is the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Dedrick Asante-Muhammed is the director of the Racial Wealth Divide Initiative at the Corporation for Enterprise Development.
Josh  Hoxie is the director of the Project on Opportunity and Taxation at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Emanuel Nieves is the Government Affairs Manager at the Corporation for Enterprise Development.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/GApaRvLD6DE/

New Report Shows Utility Tax-Dodging Worth Billions

Utilities companies pay the lowest effective tax rate of any U.S. business sector, and in 2015 this tax-dodging added up to billions in lost revenue that could’ve been used to fight climate change, according to a just-released report by the Institute for Policy Studies.

The report, Utilities Pay Up, provides detailed information on the 40 publicly held utilities that were profitable in 2015. Key findings:

Utilities Are Even Better at Tax-Dodging than Multinationals

  • The utilities industry pays the lowest effective federal tax rate of any business sector. Of the 40 U.S. publicly held utilities companies that were profitable in 2015, 23 paid no federal income taxes and 16 paid no state taxes.
  • The most extreme example of utilities tax-dodging in 2015 was Southern Company, a fierce Clean Power Plan opponent, which reaped $ 210 million in federal and state tax refunds, despite $ 3.6 billion in pre-tax income.
  • The industry’s low IRS bills are largely due to depreciation tax breaks. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the 23 profitable utilities that paid no federal taxes in 2015 reported $ 11.5 billion in benefits from special tax rules that allow corporations to write off the cost of their investments faster than they wear out.

Revenue Potential from Fair Taxation of Utilities Companies

  • If the 40 profitable utilities had paid the average rate retailers pay, they would’ve paid more than $ 11.7 billion in additional federal taxes. At the state level, if these firms had paid the statutory rate, they would’ve paid an estimated additional $ 2.3 billion— for a total of $ 14.1 billion in additional federal and state revenue.

Energy Efficiency Costs that Could be Covered by Fairly Taxing Utilities

  • The $ 14.1 billion in extra revenue that could have been generated through fair taxation would be enough to create more than 88,000 energy efficiency jobs or weatherize homes for up to 3 million low-income families.

“Our corporate tax system is so broken that large, profitable utilities get away with not paying their fair share and instead channel money into fighting regulation to protect families and the planet from pollution. It’s time for utilities to pay up,” notes Janet Redman, IPS Climate Policy Director and a co-author of the report.

“Domestic U.S. utilities are even better at tax-dodging than the multinationals,” said Sarah Anderson, IPS Global Economy Director and another report co-author. “If we denied these firms costly and ineffective tax breaks, we could substantially increase investment in sustainable job creation and energy efficiency.”

The 21-page report and related graphics are available at http://www.ips-dc.org/utilities-pay-up/. For more information, contact: sarah@ips-dc.org or janet@ips-dc.org

The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS-DC.org) has conducted path-breaking research on corporate tax-dodging and financing for a clean energy transition for more than a decade.  Recent related reports have received significant media coverage, including in The GuardianCBS, and Yahoo Finance. IPS also provides a constant stream of inequality analysis and solutions through the website Inequality.org.

# # #

The post New Report Shows Utility Tax-Dodging Worth Billions appeared first on Institute for Policy Studies.

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Janet Redman directs the Climate Policy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies.

|||||||http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IPS/latest/~3/bqgH3iPWKkQ/