Will average household incomes rise if Republican  tax cuts become law? Not for long. Average cuts will be small and they won't  last. In the House version, the middle fifth of the households may see their after-tax  income rise by 1.5% in 2018, but most of that increase will be gone by 2027.  The richest 1% of households get a larger increase--2.5%--and they still be  getting most of it in 2027.[1]
                    But won't tax cuts for the rich and the  corporations generate many more jobs and higher pay?  Probably not. There is no evidence that tax  burdens on businesses and investors are the reason that job growth is not  faster or that wages are never on the up-escalator for very long.
                    The purchasing power of an hour's  work for average employees increased 53% from 1950 through 1975. But wages took  a U-turn in the 70s and they fell or stagnated in the 1980s. The latter  occurred despite the fact that rich people were gifted with much more after-tax  income in the Reagan era. Between 1980 and 1982 the top marginal tax rate was  cut from 70% to 50%; from 1986 to 1988, it fell to 28%, the lowest level since 1931.  The corporate tax rate was also slashed. Despite these incentives, average  hourly pay fell 4% (1980-1990).[2]
                    Dropping individual tax rates for  rich people does not lift average Americans. Neither does cutting corporate taxes,  as long as there is a plentiful supply of jobless workers and few strong unions.  Don't expect a big jump in real business investment when many companies already  have more money than they know what to do with. How much more stuff can they  sell if household incomes don't increase substantially? [3]
                    But I am engaging in a fact-based  discussion of economic policy and social justice. That's not what Republican promises  are all about. The new tax cuts may add a little economic boost as government  revenues don't grow as fast as spending--it's Keynesian deficit spending, and  Republicans do it all the time--but it's unlikely that there will be sustained wage  increases. Higher pay for workers has never been a Republican goal, and nor is it  for quite a few Democrats. Republicans are in charge and if they really cared  about workers, they could raise the federal minimum wage to $15 and start  infrastructure programs today. They might actually help unemployed left-behinds  in Ohio, West Virginia, Detroit, and Chicago. And they'd win Democratic support  on both issues. But most Republicans aren't interested in good-job policies or  cooperation across the aisle. Many, especially members of the Tea-Party/Freedom  Caucus, have a gimme world-view that elevates the capitalist ethic of greed  into a moral code. They're for YOYO (You're On Your Own),  not WITT (We're In This Together).
                    If a right-wing House Republican leader  were talking privately to his colleagues in an honest and realistic way, he  might sound like this: 
                    "Just among ourselves--doing things  to create more jobs and more income for the lower half--that's not important. Talking  about it is good, but I haven't thought much about it. We are doing the tax  cuts to reward corporations and our big donors; we need their money--that's  politics. But we also have idealistic motives--our own moral theory. Affluent  and rich Americans deserve everything they can get their hands on, regardless  of how they do it and how many jobs they kill. They work hard amassing wealth. Sometimes  they create a lot of jobs; sometimes they get rich by destroying jobs. Often  they make money by employing lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes and rig  legislation. Hey, that's life; more power to them. It's good that their kids  start out way ahead of John and Jane Doe's kids, and the kids will have more of  a head start when we get rid of the Estate Tax. And why not? These are  obviously people of good stock.
                    "Think of it this way. We are  cutting government to boost Social Darwinism. That's the struggle that lifts  everyone…well, everyone who has what it takes. The federal government is 90%  burden. We know it never creates jobs. Market competition is what makes America  great. American was greater in the 1800s when the Robber Barons and their servants  could tell the truth about defective workers and did not have to be dainty about  crushing worker rebellions. We need more of that. Selfishness is good. You  should all read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  It was published in the 1950s but it is still relevant. However, it's  longer than our tax bill. If you are too busy for Atlas, here's a short variation that comes with God's approval. In  many public lectures he gave in the late 1800s, a man named Russell Conwell said  this: a poor man is one 'whom God has punished for his sins... remember that  there is not a poor person in the United States who was not been made poor by  his own shortcomings or the shortcomings of someone else. It is all wrong to be  poor anyhow.' Invigorating, right?  We  need more of that today. Here's a motto for us: Selfishness good. My money going  to help average Americans bad."  By the  way, this statement may not be appropriate for all audiences.
    [1] On the House bill, Tax Policy Center, "Preliminary  Distributional Analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," November 8, 2017,  especially Figure 1. On the Senate proposal, check the graphic in David  Leonhardt, "The G.O.P. Is Fooling Itself on Taxes," New York Times, Sunday Review, November 19, 2017, 3.
      [2]  Wage information based on The Economic Report of the President, 2016, Table B-15.
      [3]  Josh Bivens,  "Real World Data Continue to Show No Link Between Corporate Cuts and Wage  Increases," from Economic Policy Institute, November 3, 2017, found at  https://portside.org, November 12, 2017; and Eduardo Porter, "Tax Cuts, Sold as  Fuel for Growth, Widen Gap Between Rich and Poor," New York Times, October 3, 2017, accessed November 15, 2017, at  nytimes.com.
        ___________________________________________________________________________
        Frank Stricker is on the board of the National  Jobs for All Coalition and is emeritus professor of history and labor studies  at California State University, Dominguez Hills. He has just finished What Ails the American Worker? Unemployment  and Crummy Jobs: History, Explanations, Remedies.
        This list is only for announcements, so you may not post. To contact the list manager, write to njfac [at] njfac.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "goodjobs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goodjobsforall+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
