'Tax Reform Is Hard. Keeping Tax Reform Is Harder': Highlights from the House Tax Cuts Hearing
The House Ways and Means Committee held a three-hour hearing Wednesday on the effects of the Republican tax overhaul. We tuned in so you wouldn’t have to.
As you might have expected, the hearing was mostly an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to exercise their messaging on the benefits or dangers of the new law, and for the experts testifying to disagree whether the gains from the law would outweigh the costs. But there was also some consensus that it’s still very early to try to gauge the effects of the law that was signed into effect by President Trump less than five months ago.
“I would emphasize that, despite all the high-quality economic research that’s been done, never before has the best economy on the planet moved from a worldwide system of taxation to a territorial system of taxation. There is no precedent,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And in that way we do not really know the magnitude and the pace at which a lot of these [effects] will occur.”
Some key quotes from the hearing:
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the committee: “This was not tax reform. This was a tax cut for people at the top. The problem that Republicans hope Americans overlook is the law’s devastating impact on your health care. In search of revenue to pay for corporate cuts, the GOP upended the health care system, causing 13 million Americans to lose their coverage. For others, health insurance premiums will spike by at least 10 percent, which translates to about $2,000 a year of extra costs per year for a family of four. … These new health expenses will dwarf any tax cuts promised to American families. … The fiscal irresponsibility of their law is stunning. Over the next 10 years they add $2.3 trillion to the nation’s debt to finance tax cuts for people at the top – all borrowed money. … When the bill comes due, Republicans intend to cut funding for programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”
David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson, and chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers: “We recently polled the NAM members, and the responses heard back from them on the tax reform are very significant and extremely positive: 86 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase investments, 77 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase hiring, 72 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase wages or benefits.”
Holtz-Eakin: “No, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. If they did there would be no additional debt from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and there is. The question is, is it worth it? Will the growth and the incentives that come from it be worth the additional federal debt. My judgment on that was yes. Reasonable people can disagree. … When we went into this exercise, there was $10 trillion in debt in the federal baseline, before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was a dangerous rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. It was my belief, and continues to be my belief, that those problems would not be addressed in a stagnant, slow-growth economy. Those are enormously important problems, and we needed to get growth going so we can also take them on.”
“Quite frankly, it’s not going to be possible to hold onto this beneficial tax reform if you don’t get the spending side under control. Tax reform is hard. Keeping tax reform is harder, and the growth consequences of not fixing the debt outlook are entirely negative and will overwhelm what you’ve done so far.”
Steven Rattner: "We would probably all agree that increases in our national debt of these kinds of orders of magnitude have a number of deleterious effects. First, they push interest rates up. … That not only increases the cost of borrowing for the federal government, it increases the cost of borrowing for private corporations whose debt is priced off of government paper. Secondly, it creates additional pressure on spending inside the budget to the extent anyone is actually trying to control the deficit. … And thirdly, and in my view perhaps most importantly, it’s a terrible intergenerational transfer. We are simply leaving for our children additional trillions of dollars of debt that at some point are going to have to be dealt with, or there are going to have to be very, very substantial cuts in benefits, including programs like Social Security and Medicare, in order to reckon with that.”
A Red-Hot Tesla Burns Rubber on Consumer Reports
The Tesla Model S P85D sedan just broke the Consumer Reports rating system.
By definition, a car can’t exceed a score of 100 on the road test. But after the P85D racked up a score of 103, Consumer Reports was forced to create a new benchmark for the system and overhaul the ratings process according to a news release. The new system caused the car to slip to a score of 100.
A few characteristics of the car that allowed it to perform better in the test than any other car ever before include its rapid acceleration ability (0 to 60 mph in 3.5 seconds), its remarkable energy-efficiency (the car gets the equivalent of 87 miles per gallon) and its better breaking and handling system than the former top-scoring standard Model S. Two years ago, the base model version of the Model S received a 99 out of 100, which at the time was the highest rating ever for a vehicle.
Related: Why Americans Are Keeping Their Cars Longer Than Ever
The report is careful to note that even with a perfect score, the Tesla isn’t a perfect car. Besides a price tag of $127,820, beyond the means of the average person and the most expensive car Consumer Reports has ever reviewed, the car is louder than the base Model S and isn’t as plush as other luxury vehicles.
In addition, a long drive might be problematic if there aren’t any nearby charging stations along the route due to the vehicle’s 200-plus mile range. The rating also doesn’t account for the Tesla’s reliability, but the Model S comes with average reliability, according to owner-survey responses.
Imperfections aside, the car received an enviable final assessment. “It’s a remarkable car that paves a new, unorthodox course, and it’s a powerful statement of American startup ingenuity,” the report reads.
North Dakota Police Can Now Legally Use Taser Drones
It’s a classic case of unintended consequences. A Republican lawmaker in North Dakota put forth legislation meant to prevent law enforcement officials from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance on private property without a warrant. It was transformed by fellow lawmakers into a bill allowing the police to mount Tasers, pepper spray, sound cannons and other “less-than-lethal” weapons on flying drones.
The legislation, House Bill 1328, was passed and signed into law earlier this year, but got little attention until this week, when a Daily Beast report pointed out the implications of the legislation: Law enforcement officers many miles away from suspects could have the authority to stun or otherwise incapacitate them.
Related: Ben Carson’s Idea for Controlling the Border – Military Drone Attacks
To be clear, the fact that something like this is technically legal doesn’t mean that state and local police departments will necessarily embrace the practice of remotely subduing suspects. Police officers are generally subject to local and departmental rules that can substantially limit what tactics are allowed.
The original version of the bill included language that would have barred law enforcement from mounting weapons of any kind on a drone: “A state agency may not authorize the use of, including granting a permit to use, an unmanned aircraft armed with any lethal or nonlethal weapons, including firearms, pepper spray, bean bag guns, mace, and sound-based weapons,” it said.
Supporters of the state’s police union introduced an amendment to the bill that would allow less-than-lethal weapons to be mounted on drones, according to the Daily Beast’s Justin Glawe. The amended bill was ultimately passed and signed into law.
Related: Europe Faces Up to Flight Safety Threat Posed by Drones
State Rep. Rick Becker this spring voiced his dismay at the changes to the bill in a public hearing, saying, “In my opinion there should be a nice, red line: Drones should not be weaponized. Period.”
Drones have, of course, been weaponized for years — the strikes just haven’t been in the U.S. If North Dakota is taking the lead, however, that might be about to change.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times
- Trump Turns a Covetous Eye Toward Evangelical Voters
- Are Immigrants Really Taking American Jobs?
- Why the New Debt Ceiling Deadline Could Be Crucial
Why Big Salary Raises May Be Gone for Good
If you’re hoping for a big raise this year, prepare to be disappointed. Sure, you might be among the lucky people who get a healthy bump in salary, but a recent survey by professional services firm Towers Watson found that companies are planning pay raises of 3 percent on average for workers.
A new survey by human resources and management consultancy Aon Hewitt confirms that forecast: Even as the job market continues to improve, salaried employees can expect their base pay to increase 3 percent, or about a percentage point smaller than the raises employers were handing out 20 years ago.
Related: Full Employment Alone Won’t Solve Problem of Stagnating Wages
From 1996 through 2000, salaries went up by about 4.1 percent a year, according to Aon Hewitt data. From 2011 through 2015, annual raises have averaged about 2.8 percent. And even as we get further away from the recession, that downward shift appears to be permanent, as companies look to keep a lid on their fixed costs.
"The modest increases we've seen over the past 20 years are an indication that employers have changed their compensation strategies for good, and we shouldn't expect to see salary increases revert back to 4 percent or higher levels that were commonplace in the past," said Aon Hewitt’s Ken Abosch.
Related: Obama Moves Toward Executive Action on Overtime Pay
On the bright side, at least for some workers, employers are planning on doling out more money in the form of bonuses, cash awards and other so-called variable pay. Aon Hewitt’s survey found that workers will see their variable pay rise by 12.9 percent this year.
That shift favors higher-level white-collar workers, since companies have been cutting back on bonus and incentive pay for clerical or technical workers. In 2011, only 43 percent of companies gave bonuses or other cash incentives to those hourly workers eligible for overtime pay, down from 61 percent in 2009, according to data Aon Hewitt shared with The Washington Post. On the other hand, 93 percent of companies offer incentive programs to employees with a fixed salary.
As Abosch told the Post: “It’s the haves and the have nots.”
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- How a Biden-Warren Ticket Could Transform the Campaign
- The 10 Best States for Property Taxes
- Air Force Brushes off $27 Billion Accounting Error
Retirement? Bah! Let’s Spend it Now
Americans may be taking their #YOLO lifestyle a bit too far. You do only live once, after all, but most people also only get one shot at retirement.
More than a third of Americans say that they’re not saving for tomorrow because they are unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life today and would rather spend their money on things like dinners and vacations, according to a new study by Charles Schwab.
Maintaining their current lifestyle was the number one reason that people aren’t saving for retirement, followed by unexpected expenses (31 percent), covering monthly bills (31 percent), and paying off credit card debt (24 percent).
Even if they’re not prioritizing saving for retirement, they do want to work for a company that offers a retirement plan. Nine in 10 of those surveyed said that they would think twice about taking a job if the company did not offer a 401(k) plan, and 80 percent said they wouldn’t be confident in their ability to save for retirement without a 401(k) plan.
Related: Here are 7 Ways People Screw Up Their 401(k)s
Those who do have 401(k) plans said they don’t feel they’re getting enough guidance. Nearly half of those surveyed said that the materials explaining investment options are more confusing than those explaining health and medical benefits.
More than two-thirds of employees said that they want personalized investment counseling, but only 12 percent are currently getting professional advice. About half of those surveyed said that they would expect better performance if they used professional advice.
Nearly three-quarters of people said they’d rather have their 401(k) balance grow by 15 percent this year than lose 15 pounds. Maybe if they stopped eating dinners out, they could have both.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- The Worst States for Retirement in 2015
- Why a Market Crash Could be Good for Retirement Savers
- The 10 States with the Worst Roads
Diamond Prices Are Falling, but Don’t Rush to Buy an Engagement Ring
Diamond prices are getting slashed, but that doesn’t mean you should run out to the jewelry store right now.
De Beers, the world’s largest producer and distributor of diamonds by value, is cutting diamond prices by as much as 9 percent, according to Bloomberg.
Diamond prices have already slumped over the past year as demand has fallen, partly as a result of the economic slowdown in China, the second-biggest market for the precious stones.
Related: Can Gold Regain Its Shine?
De Beers, which is a unit of mining giant Anglo American and controls one-third of the global diamond market, initially tried to stabilize prices by ramping down its production. It had started the year with a production goal of 34 million carats, but has twice slashed the goal to a current 29 million to 31 million carats.
That hasn’t been enough to counterbalance sagging demand, so De Beers says it will invest in a holiday marketing campaign in an attempt to boost consumer interest. The campaign will be focused in the U.S. and China, the world’s two leading diamond markets, and will primarily target men buying diamond jewelry gifts for their partners.
In other words, you can expect to see a whole lot of diamond commercials soon — and in an interview with The Fiscal Times, one diamond industry expert predicted that the industry’s struggles will lead at least some retailers to cut prices this holiday season.
Related: Putin’s Spokesman Wears a Golden Skull Watch Worth $620K
The De Beers price cuts probably won’t have much effect on prices at high-end jewelry retailers such as Tiffany’s, though. These stores only purchase gems from a limited number of producers and since the diamonds they use are higher in value, their prices aren’t as vulnerable to market pressures as less valuable stones.
But it never hurts to look, right?
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- Why You Should Ignore the Stock Market Sell-Off
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- The Best Things to Charge on Your Credit Card