JP Morgan CEO Gets Pay Cut After Trading Loss - ABC News:
Briefly the story notes that Mr Dimon's pay has been cut from $23 million to $11.5 million ($1.5 million in salary and $10 million in restricted stock) following a loss of $6 billion by a London JPM trader. On the positive side at least something was done. That said, Mr Dimon's cut in pay, $11.5 million, is 0.2% of the loss his failure to effectively manage cost. Common Sense wonders, how many other JPM employees having lost $6 billion for the bank would still have a job, never mind an $11.5 billion salary? Just a bit of common sense.
'via Blog this'
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Senator Bernie Sanders, VT, and some common sense on corporate taxes
I'll admit it, Common Sense is a fan of Senator Bernie Sanders and his, well, common sense approach to government. Here's an interesting fact sheet from Bernie that should be required reading in the next act of the Congressional Follies.
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Corporations Must Pay Their Fair Share
Today corporate profits are at an all-time high, while corporate income tax
revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low.
In 1952, 32% of all of the revenue generated in this country came from large
corporations. Today, just 9% of federal revenue comes from corporate
America.
At 1.6%, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower than any other
major country in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development) including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Norway,
Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and
Iceland.
In 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest
since 1972.
In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even
though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one year period.
Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in
taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman
Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas.
In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did they not pay
any federal income taxes, they actually received a $157 million rebate from
the IRS.
In 2010, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS,
even though it made $4.4 billion in profits. Bank of America operated 371
subsidiaries in offshore tax havens in 2010. 204 of these subsidiaries are
incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
At 15.7%, revenue as a percentage of GDP is at or near the lowest level in
sixty years.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says Walmart heirs own more wealth than bottom 40 percent of Americans:
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
As noted in an earlier post, societies with disproportionate wealth distributions, as is now the case in the United States, are subject to social instability and occasional revolution. Tax policies that result in a handful of families with more wealth than over 100 million families violates any sense of fairness and common sense. Yet, a segment of the radical right believes that tax policies that favor the wealthy will lead to more wealth for everyone. Never mind that that hasn't worked the last two times it was tried. Common Sense thinks that policy needs to support the poor and grow the middle class not make the wealthy wealthier. That's just common sense if you want a healthy society.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Fact checking the presidential candidates - The Washington Post
Fact checking the presidential candidates - The Washington Post:
For the most part I'm not a fan of sending along videos. This one is an exception.
For interested readers, above is a video of a recent speech given by Glenn Kessler on fact checking the statements of President Obama, former governor Mitt Romney and their allies during this presidential season. In the June speech before the National Capital Area Skeptics, Kessler describes the Pinocchio ranking system, explains how he evaluates various claims and provides commentary on various television advertisements that he shows to the audience. He also answers questions — some skeptical — from the audience.
'via Blog this'
For the most part I'm not a fan of sending along videos. This one is an exception.
For interested readers, above is a video of a recent speech given by Glenn Kessler on fact checking the statements of President Obama, former governor Mitt Romney and their allies during this presidential season. In the June speech before the National Capital Area Skeptics, Kessler describes the Pinocchio ranking system, explains how he evaluates various claims and provides commentary on various television advertisements that he shows to the audience. He also answers questions — some skeptical — from the audience.
'via Blog this'
Monday, July 2, 2012
When ideological purity trumps common sense
Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move? - The Washington Post:
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
“I will act to repeal Obamacare,” said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on Friday.
“We will not flinch from our resolve to make sure this law is repealed in its entirety,” House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”.
“If I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of Obamacare will be job one,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) on “Fox News Sunday”.
Florida says no to two U.S. healthcare law features | Reuters:
(Reuters) - Florida will not implement two provisions of the U.S. healthcare law involving an expansion of Medicaid for the poor and creation of a private insurance exchange, Governor Rick Scott said on Sunday.
Two other states with Republican governors, Wisconsin and Louisiana, opted out of the two provisions last week in the wake of the Supreme Court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
And so the games begin. Lets try some common sense.
Mitt Romney, the man who would be president, who believed in the principal provisions of the Affordable Care Act when he was governor of Massachusetts, now believes that these are, and here I'll quote Mr. Romney, "bad law." Curious that and certainly not common sense.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell want to repeal the law in its entirety. Thus it follows that they object to elements of the law that prohibit insurance company abuses involving preexisting conditions, insurance cancellation if you become sick, extended coverage for minors, insurance exchanges so those who must buy their own insurance can get a better price. Clearly the ideology of the radical right trumps what is good for United States citizens. Certainly not common sense.
Radical right wing ideology extends to governor's offices, at least in Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisiana all of whom object to extending medical care for the poor and setting up insurance exchanges.
In the matter of Medicare the choice is simple, we can provide Medicare insurance to the poor so they are less sick less often or, as the governors seem to believe, we can allow them to become more sick, more often, and then go to Hospitals, the most expensive form of medical care where the cost is ultimately covered by the cost of insurance on everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
The nonsense with insurance exchanges is equally wrong headed, aka just plain dumb. By not setting up exchanges these governors require citizens without employer provided insurance to buy as individuals. Such insurance is, and here I speak from my own experience, much more expensive and consequentially leads many to become uninsured. The result is as above, more sick, more often, care in much more expensive hospital settings, cost born by everyone else. Certainly not common sense.
Ideological purity leads to bad government. It's time for Congress and Governors alike to look to the "general welfare" of United States citizens. That's one of the principals of our form of government. That's just common sense.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
When is privacy not privacy
Recently I received this email from TurboTax.
By way of setting context, TurboTax is a great product, witness their market share. I've used it for several years and been reasonably satisified.
But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
| |||||
and we want to share our privacy statement with you.But is this reasonable privacy? On first reading it might seem OK but what it doesn't say raises some issues. This policy doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my data, only that it will not explicitly identify it as belonging to me. It doesn't say that TurboTax will not sell my email address. It doesn't say that TurboTax won't aggregate my data to identify the town I live in or the street I live on as appropriate for some purpose.
Common Sense wonders, when is privacy not private?
Friday, June 29, 2012
Supreme Court & Affordable Care Act
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Affordable Care Act, upholding the requirement that almost all citizens must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The court upheld the Act on the argument that the penalty is a tax thus the Act is a proper exercise in Congresses power to tax.
While Common Sense has reluctantly favored the Act I am troubled about the entire matter. The Act will result in more citizens having health care insurance and corrects some of the most egregious health insurance abuses. These are clearly improvements to health care in the United States.
Yet the Act does not effectively address the central issue of health care cost. In the United States we spend roughly twice as much money per individual as other post industrialized nations yet our health results on many metrics are relatively poor ranking 37 according to the World Health Organization. While the ranking is debatable, it is clearly true that the United States health care system is over priced and that it under performs. The Act contains some provisions designed to address cost but, significantly, does not address any of the fundamental issues that drive excessive health care cost. It address principally who pays, insurance companies, not how much is paid, cost. It does nothing to address the disparity is drug cost between the United States and other nations such as Canada. Likewise, it does nothing to address excessive health apparatus cost. It does nothing to address malpractice insurance cost. It does nothing to address the very real 10 to 20 to one cost differences for identical procedures in the United States and Europe or Asia or Central America. Thus while the act unequivocally does some good it simply doesn't effectively engage the issue of cost.
Common Sense continues to believe that we deserve much better law from our elected representatives. A health care law modeled after other countries such as Canada where cost are roughly half the United States is one clearly effective alternative.
This Supreme Court decision establishes a new federal power that troubles Common Sense. The decision's rational establishes the principal that Government can use tax to coerce an individual citizen to engage in a commercial transaction. While it is true that tax policy has long been used to shape commercial activity the Court's reasoning extends government's use of the power to tax to a level that is coercive.
There are significant differences between previous tax policies that apply to individuals to shape behavior and the Act's use of a tax penalty. For example a tax policy that gives individuals favorable tax treatment for a home purchase as we have today is clearly different than a tax policy that would increase taxes on renters since they do not purchase a home. The first kind of tax policy has long been accepted. Home ownership is widely viewed as a societal good and thus deserving of favorable tax treatment. The second kind of tax policy would doubtless generate enormous resistance just as the Act has done. It is interesting no note that while a tax credit or deduction for those with insurance is certainly conceivable Congress chose instead to impose a coercive penalty tax.
While Common Sense reluctantly favors the Affordable Care Act as a flawed improvement to a clearly broken health care system, I am very troubled by the Supreme Court's reasoning. Common Sense believes both that United States citizens deserve much better health care reform likely based on the single payer systems that have demonstrably better results, and that this Supreme Court reasoning is both flawed and ultimately dangerous.
While Common Sense has reluctantly favored the Act I am troubled about the entire matter. The Act will result in more citizens having health care insurance and corrects some of the most egregious health insurance abuses. These are clearly improvements to health care in the United States.
Yet the Act does not effectively address the central issue of health care cost. In the United States we spend roughly twice as much money per individual as other post industrialized nations yet our health results on many metrics are relatively poor ranking 37 according to the World Health Organization. While the ranking is debatable, it is clearly true that the United States health care system is over priced and that it under performs. The Act contains some provisions designed to address cost but, significantly, does not address any of the fundamental issues that drive excessive health care cost. It address principally who pays, insurance companies, not how much is paid, cost. It does nothing to address the disparity is drug cost between the United States and other nations such as Canada. Likewise, it does nothing to address excessive health apparatus cost. It does nothing to address malpractice insurance cost. It does nothing to address the very real 10 to 20 to one cost differences for identical procedures in the United States and Europe or Asia or Central America. Thus while the act unequivocally does some good it simply doesn't effectively engage the issue of cost.
Common Sense continues to believe that we deserve much better law from our elected representatives. A health care law modeled after other countries such as Canada where cost are roughly half the United States is one clearly effective alternative.
This Supreme Court decision establishes a new federal power that troubles Common Sense. The decision's rational establishes the principal that Government can use tax to coerce an individual citizen to engage in a commercial transaction. While it is true that tax policy has long been used to shape commercial activity the Court's reasoning extends government's use of the power to tax to a level that is coercive.
There are significant differences between previous tax policies that apply to individuals to shape behavior and the Act's use of a tax penalty. For example a tax policy that gives individuals favorable tax treatment for a home purchase as we have today is clearly different than a tax policy that would increase taxes on renters since they do not purchase a home. The first kind of tax policy has long been accepted. Home ownership is widely viewed as a societal good and thus deserving of favorable tax treatment. The second kind of tax policy would doubtless generate enormous resistance just as the Act has done. It is interesting no note that while a tax credit or deduction for those with insurance is certainly conceivable Congress chose instead to impose a coercive penalty tax.
While Common Sense reluctantly favors the Affordable Care Act as a flawed improvement to a clearly broken health care system, I am very troubled by the Supreme Court's reasoning. Common Sense believes both that United States citizens deserve much better health care reform likely based on the single payer systems that have demonstrably better results, and that this Supreme Court reasoning is both flawed and ultimately dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)