• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

We are inching along, but not as quickly as we (or you) would like. If you have already donated, thank you so much. If you haven’t had a chance, consider skipping the coffee this week and drop CounterPunch $5 or more. We provide our content for free, but it costs us a lot to do so. Every dollar counts.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Sanders Wants Corporations to Fulfill Trump’s Tax Cut Promise

Last year’s Republican tax cut was sold to the American people as a plan to boost growth and wages. The centerpiece of the plan was a large cut in the corporate income tax, with the tax rate reduced from 35 percent to 21 percent.

Most immediately, this looks like a big handout to shareholders, which means the wealthy, since stock ownership is so heavily skewed to the top. The richest 1 percent of households hold close to half of the stock held by individuals, and the richest 10 percent of households hold almost 90 percent.

So when we give a tax break to corporations, we are handing money to those at the very top and those close to it.

But the Trump administration promised that the benefits would trickle down. They claimed the tax cut would lead to a massive investment boom, which would then lead to a surge in productivity, and finally translate into higher wages.

We were promised an average wage gain of $4,000 a year above baseline growth for an average family within four years.

As we approach the end of year one, we are not on track to hit the Trump administration’s target. Wages are growing modestly above the rate of inflation. Over the last year, average hourly earnings have risen by just 0.7 percent more than prices.

While that is going in the right direction, there is no evidence of any speed-up in wage growth due to the tax cut. Wages are in line with baseline projections. At this pace, workers are going to have to wait a very long time to make up the ground lost during the recession.

The lack of any pick-up in wage growth is hardly surprising. Again, there is no evidence of any tax cut-generated investment boom. Investment is modestly higher in 2018 than in 2017, but there were several years in the Obama administration with more rapid investment growth.

Instead of investing, companies have been paying out their tax cuts to shareholders in the form of share buybacks and dividends. This is exactly what most economists predicted would happen as a result of the tax cut.

A new bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna(D-Calif.) is intended to force companies to share some of the tax benefits with workers.

It would prevent companies that employ more than 500 workers from having share buybacks unless they pay workers at least $15 an hour, provide at least five days a year of paid leave and don’t pay their CEO more than 50 times as much as the median worker.

As a practical matter, this bill, which is dubbed the Stop Walmart Act (as Walmart is notorious as a low-paying employer), is going nowhere.

The House will not pass it; the Senate would never touch it; and, Donald Trumpwould surely veto the bill if, by some miracle, it was brought to his desk. Nonetheless, the bill does highlight the failure of corporations to share their bounty with workers.

If we took the rationale for the tax cut seriously, corporations should be investing the money, not increasing share buybacks or dividend payouts, the latter of which were inexplicably not mentioned in the Sanders-Khanna bill. And, if they don’t have good investment options, then they should share some of their tax cut directly with workers.

The $15-an-hour wage is certainly affordable for large profitable companies like Walmart. If the minimum had kept pace with inflation from the late 1960s it would be close to $12.50 an hour by now. If it had kept pace with productivity growth, which it had in the three decades from 1937 to 1968, it would be over $20 an hour.

Five days a year of paid leave is pretty minimal. In Western Europe, workers are guaranteed at least 20 days and in several countries they can count on 30 days.

The limit on CEO pay is actually doing shareholders a favor. Due to our broken corporate governance structure even incompetent CEOs can walk away with tens of millions of dollars.

This is one reason that returns to shareholders have been so poor in the last two decades, less than 4.7 percent annually compared to 8.2 percent in the Golden Age from 1947 to 1973.

In short, the Sanders-Khanna bill raises important issues. Hopefully it will put pressure on large employers to share some of their tax cut bounty with ordinary workers. And, perhaps it will be a step in the process of bringing CEO pay back down to earth.

This column originally appeared on The Hill.

More articles by:

Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. 

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
October 21, 2019
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Wolf at the Door: Adventures in Fundraising With Cockburn
Rev. William Alberts
Myopic Morality: The Rehabilitation of George W. Bush
Sheldon Richman
Let’s Make Sure the Nazis Killed in Vain
Horace G. Campbell
Chinese Revolution at 70: Twists and Turns, to What?
Jim Kavanagh
The Empire Steps Back
Ralph Nader
Where are the Influentials Who Find Trump Despicable?
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Poll Projection: Left-Leaning Jagmeet Singh to Share Power with Trudeau in Canada
Thomas Knapp
Excuses, Excuses: Now Hillary Clinton’s Attacking Her Own Party’s Candidates
stclair
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Brian Terrell
The United States Air Force at Incirlik, Our National “Black Eye”
Paul Bentley
A Plea for More Cynicism, Not Less: Election Day in Canada
Walter Clemens
No Limits to Evil?
Robert Koehler
The Collusion of Church and State
Kathy Kelly
Taking Next Steps Toward Nuclear Abolition
Charlie Simmons
How the Tax System Rewards Polluters
Chuck Collins
Who is Buying Seattle? The Perils of the Luxury Real Estate Boom
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail