Citigroup document admits we're living in a Plutonomy

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff


Re: Citigroup document admits we're living in a Plutonomy

Postby semper occultus » Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:09 pm

Forty millionaires ask New York to raise taxes on wealthy in '1% plan for fairness'

Open letter from ‘New Yorkers who have contributed to and benefited from the economic vibrancy of our state’ says they ‘have the responsibility to pay’

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/40-millionaires-ask-new-york-raise-taxes-wealthy-1-percent-plan-fairness

More than 40 millionaires on Monday asked New York state to raise taxes on the wealthy, under what they called a “1% plan for tax fairness”.

“As New Yorkers who have contributed to and benefited from the economic vibrancy of our state, we have both the ability and the responsibility to pay our fair share,” the millionaires said in an open letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers.

Saying they were “deeply concerned that too many New Yorkers are struggling economically, and the state’s ailing infrastructure is in desperate need of attention”, the millionaires urged “the governor and the legislature” to pass “the 1% Plan for New York Tax Fairness”.

The letter was put together with the Fiscal Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, and the Responsible Wealth project, a network of hundreds of the wealthiest Americans who support “fair taxes and corporate accountability”.

Among the backers of the plan are Steven Rockefeller, a fourth-generation member of the Rockefeller family; Elspeth Gilmore, who works to get wealthy people under 35 to donate to philanthropic efforts; and Joshua Mailman, son of the inventor and philanthropist Joseph Mailman.

The signees emphasized that funds are needed to address issues such as child poverty, homelessness and crumbling infrastructure.

“It is a shameful fact that child poverty in New York state is at a record level,” they wrote, “exceeding 50% in some of our urban centers. New York State has a record number of homeless families – more than 80,000 people – struggling to survive across the state. And far too many adults in our state do not have the work skills needed for the 21st-century economy.”

The millionaires added: “These human and physical infrastructure investments will pay off in the creation of new jobs, a workforce prepared to fill them and a reduction in the extreme income inequality that currently exists in our state.”

Lewis Cullman, retired chief executive of the At-A-Glance appointment book company, said he supported the plan because philanthropy does not pay for things such as street maintenance, food inspections or public schools.

“Those of us in the top 1% of incomes have a particular responsibility to contribute to the public sector at a higher marginal tax rate than everyone else,” Cullman said in a statement.

New York state lawmakers are working to sort a new income tax deal by 1 April. The existing tax rate schedule will expire at the end of 2017 and without a new deal in place, anyone making more than $40,000 will pay only 6.85%.

Under the current New York plan, people who have more than $2m in taxable income pay 8.82%. The millionaire’s proposal moves to have that rate apply to people who make between $1m and $2m.

From there, the millionaires say, rates should increase incrementally, with those who make $2m to $10m taxed at 9.35%; those who make $10m to $100m taxed at 9.85%; and those who make more than $100m taxed at 9.99%.

Organizers estimate the plan would raise state income tax revenue by $2.2bn.

The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The Democratic-controlled New York assembly is also working to push through a plan that would impose higher tax rates on the state’s highest earners.

Last month, speaker Carl Heastie unveiled the plan, which has anyone making between $1m and $5m paying 8.82%; people making between $5m and $10m paying 9.32%; and people making more than $10m paying 9.82%.

Of the millionaires’ plan, Heastie’s communications director, Michael Wyland, said: “We support a higher tax on millionaires, however we haven’t had a chance to review the details of this proposal.”

The Republican-led state senate does not support tax increases for the wealthy.

After the assembly Democrats announced their tax plan, senate leader John Flanagan said: “Whether it’s income taxes, property taxes, business taxes, user fees or tolls, we don’t support raising taxes or asking hard-working New Yorkers to dig deeper into their pockets to pay more.”

Earlier this month a national group called Patriotic Millionaires backed a plan to close a New York tax loophole that benefits the wealthy.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citigroup document admits we're living in a Plutonomy

Postby semper occultus » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:35 pm

The Rise Of The Politics Of Rage

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/rise-politics-rage

Rage is all the rage these days, but as Barclays notes, what appears less well understood is that this voter rebellion, “the Politics of Rage”, spans nearly all advanced economies, has been taking place for more than a decade, is unparalleled in modern history, and is deeply entrenched.

This is not just about Brexit or the US election; it is about a global political movement.

More troubling, from a market perspective, is that its roots may be misunderstood. Misperceptions in politics tend to lead to volatile surprises, such as Brexit, or to misdiagnoses and to policy mis-prescriptions that imply even worse outcomes for asset prices.

Policymakers have focused on income inequality as the primary driver of the Politics of Rage. Although we cannot reject the thesis, we find little support for it in the data. Others have focused on anti-globalisation movements as the main driver. Our analysis agrees, but in results that may surprise some; we find that it is neither the most important source of rage nor as economically irrational as some have suggested.

We find that a deeper cause is a perception among “ordinary citizens” that political and institutional “elites” do not accurately represent their preferences amid a growing cultural and economic divide. These frustrations appear to be validated, with many caveats, by the data: median earners in advanced economies seem to have been the relative losers of globalisation, both within their own countries and relative to their emerging market peers.

Voter anger may be analogous to the Greek hero Achilles’ terrible rage, not for having received less than King Agamemnon, but for the perceived injustice in the manner in which Agamemnon distributed the spoils of battle. Achilles’ wrath cost the Greeks – and ultimately Achilles – dearly, as the Politics of Rage may cost global output. But it was not because Achilles’ sense of justice was in error.

Our findings have mostly strategic implications for asset markets, but they are not happy. Our research seems to support the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington’s forecast of continued political upheaval and highlights the trilemma of incompatibility among democracy, sovereignty and globalisation postulated by the economist Dani Rodrik. The Politics of Rage has been around longer than many realise and likely will remain for the foreseeable future. Despite this long arc, our findings also are highly relevant to near-term event risks.

The report is robust and detailed, but the issues and conclusions are framed in brief in the Executive Summary and on “Rage in a page”, below.

Image


Prospects for the Politics of Rage

• Its roots run deeply through and across countries; Brexit was no exception

• Technology likely will nourish the roots of Rage by inflaming some of the key proximate causes

• Governments are ill equipped to fight Rage with already overextended fiscal positions and low levels of popular trust

The Policies of Rage

• Sovereignty: Reclaiming sovereignty delegated to supranational and intergovernmental organizations

• Representative reform: More direct democracy and a greater voice for “ordinary citizens” • Immigration: Greater sovereign control over immigration

• Trade: Restrictions on the free movement of goods and services

• Redistribution of income: More progressive taxation and income support

• Anti-corporatism: More sovereign assertion of tax and regulatory authority for multinationals

Effects of the Policies of Rage

• Direct de-globalisation: Restrictions on the free movement of goods and services, labour and capital

• Indirect de-globalization: Greater difficulty achieving harmonisation of international rules, standards and taxation Supranational entities like the EU and intergovernmental agreements like the Basel Accords and WTO likely will be at greater risk of dissolution

• Redistribution of income: Even without explicit policies to redistribute, de-globalisation likely will lead to a greater labour share of aggregate income

Implications of the Politics of Rage

Economic

• A slower pace of trend economic growth is likely with EM growth disproportionately affected

• We expect steeper advanced economy Phillips curves; but EM may see even more disinflation

• Fiscal policy likely is ambiguous for advanced economies, but more expansionary for EM

• Global savings should fall, and precipitating a rise in real interest rates to equate investment, but the pattern should shift, ironically, to decrease advanced economy current account balances relative to EM

Financial markets

• Global nominal interest rates should rise, but more so in core economies; dispersion should increase

• G10 FX should outperform EM FX, but dispersion within each group should increase; JPY is a clear outperformer, EM and Europe are clear underperformers

• Slower global demand should dominate the outlook for commodity prices



http://uk.businessinsider.com/barclays-politics-of-rage-brexit-donald-trump-article-50-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

"We measure the Politics of Rage by the change in the combined vote share of centre right and centre-left political parties – the centre vote share – across countries."

"The centre vote share has collapsed across advanced economies by an average of 12pp since the 1990s and as much as 62pp in Austria. Only Japan and the commodity exporters have avoided a significant drop in the centre vote share."

"The collapse in the political centre began in the early 2000s in most countries, before the Global Financial Crisis, but in recent years has accelerated."

"There is no historical precedent we can find for the current widespread collapse, not even during the Great Depression years."
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests