Home > Uncategorized > Fixing the bailout scammers: The Ten Percent Solution

Fixing the bailout scammers: The Ten Percent Solution

from Dean Baker

The pandemic crisis created a rare economic opportunity. In effect, the whole economy was thrown up for grabs, with the winners and losers determined by who had the political power to get a nice bailout. Needless to say, those who were already rich got the big handouts, those at the bottom got crumbs, if anything at all.

Suppose we had let the market work its magic on the airlines, on the hotel chains, the restaurant chains, the aircraft industry (i.e. Boeing), and on the oil industry. With few exceptions, the big actors in these sectors would all have been bankrupt. The companies would have been reorganized, with the ones that were otherwise viable being restructured. Debtors would take large haircuts only collecting a fraction of what they had been owed. Shareholders would be wiped it, losing trillions of dollars of equity. Many top executives would likely been sent packing, and would no longer be able to count on paychecks in the millions or tens of millions.

Of course, things didn’t turn out this way because almost no one in policy circles actually believes in the market. That’s just something they tell children and liberal policy wonks. The people in power believe in using the government to give themselves as much money as possible. Usually they can do this through structuring the market so that money flows upward. 

This is perhaps most clear in the case of government-granted patent and copyright monopolies. These government-granted monopolies in areas like prescription drugs, medical equipment, software, pesticides, fertilizers and other items likely transfer more than $1 trillion a year from the pockets of ordinary people to those who own these monopolies. Over the last four decades these monopolies have been made longer and stronger, with almost no one paying attention, in spite of the huge amount of money at stake.

It is easy to point to market structuring in other areas, most notably finance and corporate governance, which have allowed for the accumulation of great fortunes at the expense of the rest of us. Again, the rule changes that allow for massive upward redistribution were mostly done with little public attention, even though large amounts of money were at stake.

I go through these issues in more detail in Rigged [it’s free], but the point is simple: the rich have structured the market in ways that hugely increase their share of income. They pretend that this was just a natural market outcome. Many liberals accommodate this fiction, complaining that conservatives are “market fundamentalists” who dislike government.

Anyhow, the bailout from the pandemic required surrendering the illusion. The industries that were hardest hit rushed to Congress and the White House and demanded, and got, handouts. The sums involved were enormous. The airline industry got $17.5 billion (more than 10 million food stamp person years) in grants and another $7.5 billion in government subsidized loans. The cargo airline industry got $4 billion in grants and subsidized loans. The oil industry is getting a large bailout that is still be mapped out. Boeing was designated to get $17 billion in grants and subsidized loans.

This is all in full public view. While many workers will be left unemployed, with meager unemployment benefits (once the initial $600 a week bonus period ends), billionaire shareholders will have the value of their portfolios propped by the government. CEOs and other high level executives, who pocket millions or even tens of millions in pay annually, will remain secure in their high-paying jobs and will be able to maintain their lavish lifestyles as though nothing had happened.

Congress could have prevented this massive handout, either by requiring bankruptcies and supporting companies through the process, as happened with the auto bailout in the Great Recession, or by restricting executive pay and dividend payouts at companies that receive bailouts. As it turned out there were no effective restrictions imposed on these companies.

In fact, Congress decided to throw in a little something extra to help wealthy contributors get through the crisis. It put in a tax break for real estate investors, which will give $170 billion over the next decade to people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution. The beneficiaries of this gift include people like Jared Kushner and the Trump family.

While serious people should do their best to monitor the bailouts and limit the corruption, we have to recognize that the rich have largely won this battle. They have managed to ensure that most of them will not only be kept whole through this crisis, many will come out ahead. In a period where millions are losing jobs, with many struggling to be able to pay the rent and get enough to eat, the rich have managed to feast off the public purse.

If we can’t pull the rich away from the trough while Donald Trump is still in the White House, we can propose remedies that a Biden administration should pursue. There are two simple and easier ones: a special one-time tax for high income households and a corporate profit tax tied to stock returns.

For the one-time tax, we can add ten percentage points to the income tax for the top bracket of households for 2020 and 2021. (This would apply to income above roughly $300k for an individual and $500k for a couple.)  This tax would be in addition to whatever longer-term changes to the tax code that a Biden administration might want to make. This tax should apply to all income, including capital gains, both realized and unrealized.

The latter would be a new innovation that many tax analysts have advocated for some time. There is no obvious reason to allow someone to defer their taxes on capital gains just because they choose not to sell their stock or real estate. The I.R.S. can gain valuable experience in assessing unrealized capital gains. One obvious mechanism would be to assign a value based on the gains in comparable assets (e.g. a stock index or changes in real estate prices in the area of the property held). The difference between the tax liability for the actual capital gain and the imputed gain can be corrected at the time the asset is sold.

This one-time tax should raise more than $350 billion a year which is a bit more than 1.5 percent of GDP or more than 200 million food stamp person years. In other words, it is real money, although a bit less than we would save if we had no patent monopolies on prescription drugs.

The other gift to the rich would be a 10 percentage point excess profits tax which would take the form of a tax tied to the returns on their stock. Since companies have gotten very good at hiding their profits from the I.R.S. this tax makes it easy for them. We simply tax away ten percent of returns to shareholders, either in the form of dividends or higher share prices, using the halfway point between the start of the year share price and crisis trough as a reference point.

This means that the companies can hide their profits wherever they want and it doesn’t affect their tax liability, unless they also manage to hide them from their shareholders. In that case, the I.R.S. would have a powerful ally in collecting the taxes it is owed. With a market capitalization of U.S. corporations near $40 trillion, if the stock gains under this formula average 8 percent annually over 2020 and 2021, it should net the government another $320 billion for each of these two years.

These two fun fixes should go a long way towards taking back the money that we gave to the rich in the bailout. I usually don’t look to taxes as the primary mechanism for addressing inequality, but rather restructuring the market so that it doesn’t generate so much inequality, but when we are creating massive inequality through direct government transfers to the very rich, it is entirely appropriate to look to taxes to take this money back.

We also don’t have to worry about the long-term impact of creating a massive tax evasion/avoidance industry since this is only a two-year story. We can still count on the rich to lie, cheat, and steal to get out of their taxes for these two years, but it doesn’t make sense for them to make long-term plans to avoid a one-time hit to their income.

I would not count on a Biden administration to be anxious to take back the bailout loot secured by the rich and powerful, but it is possible it can be pressured in this direction. The first step is to put the menu on the table.

  1. Ken Zimmerman
    May 20, 2020 at 12:19 pm

    Dean, not nearly enough. Thom Hartmann wrote today (5 19 20), “Giving professional grifters like Steve Mnuchin and Donald Trump hundreds of billions of dollars to give away or spend at
    their own discretion is like dropping a couple of alley cats into a cage full of canaries. Once again, the grifters get rich and the average American gets screwed.” Your “bailout scammers” are cut from the same cloth. As I’ve written previously, keep them away from all money. I don’t want to raise their taxes. I want to take every dollar they claim they “earned” or is “owed” them. In simply terms beyond a specified level of income (from all sources), e.g., $500,000 all additional income goes to the citizens of the US. Now the persons and corporations claiming more money have the right to assert such a claim. But the most they can increase their incomes is to retain, for example 10% (perhaps increasing as trust increases) of the monetary value of any further benefits to American citizens they can demonstrate to third party reviewers they have already provided. Grifters must be jailed and the more useful ones kept on a short leash.

    • May 20, 2020 at 4:32 pm

      We seem to agree on the results needed, Ken, but it is much easier to get there by replacing money with credit so the grifters would become debtors and not want more than they need.

      • Ken Zimmerman
        May 20, 2020 at 4:41 pm

        Dave, I’ll take it any way I can get it. So long as the grifters end with zero money until they earn their way to it by actually helping Americans. With grifters any honest person is always at the disadvantage. Grifters’ one great talent is accumulating money. I want to negate that advantage.

      • May 21, 2020 at 10:28 am

        Ken, reading Dean Baker attentively I can see his point about the taxation route: “When we are creating massive inequality through direct government transfers to the very rich, it is entirely appropriate to look to taxes to take this money back”.

        This aside, I’m still arguing that “what an engineer can do for a penny, any fool can do for a pound”. Why all that complication when simple complexity [distinguishing reality from token] so simply avoids it?

      • Craig
        May 21, 2020 at 6:35 pm

        Why not do this: Give those who make over 10 million/yr the option of either having all income over 10 million taxed at a rate of 70%, or, if they give 70% of their income over 10 million to a group of charities the remaining 30% will be taxed at 7%

  2. Meta Capitalism
    May 21, 2020 at 12:37 am

    Many liberals accommodate this fiction, complaining that conservatives are “market fundamentalists” who dislike government. ~ Odd Statement in an otherwise good post
    Market Fundamentalism: A lobbying effort to deregulate an economy. Epitomized by Margaret Thatcher’s declaration that “there is no such thing as society,” it claims that public regulation to enforce honest dealing or pricing “distorts” economic behavior. The effect is to promote a rentier oligarchy. (See Chicago School and Free Market.) ~ Michael Hudson in J IS FOR JUNK ECONOMICS: A Guide To Reality In An Age Of Deception.

    Market fundamentalism has a specific meaning in economic studies. What the term liberal means aside* the term ‘market fundamentalism’ includes the idea and fact that markets are ‘rigged’ and therefore it is misleading to pretend they are the product of some “natural market outcome.” Hum, sounds like what Dean is saying. Indeed “the rich have structured the market in ways that hugely increase their share of income. They pretend that this was just a natural market outcome.” But without government regulation ending this rigging (someone must decide the goals/ends of regulation based on values) of the market what exactly do we have left?
    There is no such thing as a ‘free market’ for all markets are rigged. The only questions is by whom and for whom and how transparent and answerable to the democratic process and population are the institutions and mechanisms used to rig the market up and make it function. Denmark and Netherlands have very different in terms of overall outcomes than say the U.S. under Trumpism.

    * Labels are bullshit if not defined, for does “liberal” actually mean neoliberal and/or neoliberalism? And liberal is opposed to what, conservative?

  3. Ken Zimmerman
    May 24, 2020 at 2:26 pm

    Let me be blunt. “Market fundamentalism” is crap. It is a made-up story embedded in American and other cultures to justify and explain how and why those who create and define each market and its fundamentalism always come out winners in those markets. Even in the face of poor decision making and massive misuse of money, the banks and investment houses who created the 2008 “great recession” still won. No loss of pay, no loss of reputation, no loss of revenues, no jail time, not even official public reprimands. Since capitalism’s take over, we live by the golden rule. Those who have the gold make the rules. We have changed the form of the gold. Now it is financial investments and digital money, but the rule remains in place. My intent is to change this rule. So that workers, small business owners, and non-economic actors have at least equal say in the creation of economic ways of life and in the rules of that life that determine who are winners and losers. The old rule gives those who had and still have the gold a significant advantage in this remaking of economic arrangements. I want to establish processes that take away, entirely if possible that historical advantage. The most direct route to do this, seems to me is to confiscate the gold. And allow its former holders the opportunity to earn back a portion of it based on their beneficial services and products for the community. This is a legal-Constitutional position, not an economics one (as economics is defined by professional economists). An argument for redress of grievances much like that offered by minorities in the US faced with the deleterious impacts of current and past discrimination based on their minority status. Simply put, it is impossible for Americans with limited access to large amounts of money to have the same access to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness as those who have such access. I cannot see a role for economics or professional economists in the arguments. Although they may have a part to play in the rebuilding of economic relationships if the argument is successful, such as it has been with general civil rights.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.