Buildings are People My Friends

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney famously said that “corporations are people, my friends.” His comment was in response to complaints by some people about the Supreme Court’s Citizen United case that allowed corporations to donate to political campaigns. I suspect that what Romney was trying to say was that people are heavily involved in corporations, essentially that people create and own corporations, and hence profit from the, and many other people work at corporations, and hence owe their livelihoods to corporations. In this he is correct, but still misses the point.

Exactly the same thing can be said about buildings. People make money from building buildings and from owning buildings, and many people go to work every day in buildings. But we can all see the absurdity in saying that “buildings are people, my friends.” Simply alleging that because many people rely on buildings, or corporations, for their livelihood and well being, does not make a building, or a corporation, a person.

Corporations are an artificial business entity that allows the owners of a business to limit their risk. While this may sound like a dodge, or a way to avoid responsibility, the reality is that this limitation of liability is actually a very good thing. Many high risk endeavors throughout human history might not have been attempted without this limitation of risk. A number of the first American colonies were business ventures and were formed as government chartered corporations. This allowed the investors to invest money in the enterprise without the potential future risk of paying out more of their personal assets should the endeavor fail. Throughout American history corporations have been an important component of the development of canals and railroads and other risky and capital intensive enterprises.

But just because corporations are important does not mean they are without fault. This shield against liability can make a corporation dangerous. The nation’s founders understood this, and in every state strictly proscribed corporations. Most states required that the incorporators obtain a charter granted by the state legislature. This greatly limited the number of corporations, and meant that the incorporators had to convince a legislative body of the need for the corporation and its ability to provide a societal benefit.

It was only after the Civil War, and the growth of large scale industrial companies, that states changed these laws and allowed for general, as opposed to specific, charters of incorporation. But politicians and the courts were still highly skeptical of corporations. Over the years, however, limits on corporations slowly eroded, as business interests lobbied state governments to ease rules and restrictions. Now there are few restrictions on the type and scope of business that a corporation can engage in.

And while most of the largest commercial enterprises in the nation are corporations, and those corporations employ millions of people, and are often the engine of our economy, some owners can and do abuse the corporate form. I am a lawyer and I’ve dealt with business entities that are made up of overlapping and intertwining corporate entities. The purpose for this is not to limit liability but to evade it.

It is very common for the developers of residential real estate to create a corporation for a project – say a residential subdivision –  and then when the project is complete they dissolve the corporation. And then, if there is a problem with a house or a street, and the homeowner or neighborhood association sues, they will be suing a dissolved corporation with no assets. And the developer will move on to another project.  

So Mitt Romney may have been right to suggest that people often benefit from corporations, but that does not make corporations people, my friends, any more than it makes a building a person.

 

  

  

Don’t Like the Results, Kill the Report

Apparently earlier this year the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on the correlation between the top marginal tax rates and economic growth. Spoiler alert, the report found no correlation between lowering the top marginal tax rate (the rate on the so-called job creators) and an increase in overall economic activity. This result, of course, runs counter to the main thrust of the current Republican economic policy, which is to push for lower taxes on “job creators” in order to create more jobs.

So what did the Republicans in Congress do when they got the report? They demanded that the  CRS withdraw the report.  And since the CRS works for Congress, and Republicans are in the majority, they CRS had no choice but to withdraw the report.

But there is magic in the internet. Things really don’t disappear, so the report is available here.

The New York Times story is also available here.

The overall conclusion of the report:

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.

The Rising Cost of Health Care

The Lane Report has an article titled “The Seven Factors Driving Health Care Cost. ” (Click the title for a link to the article.) Since it was from the Lane Report my assumption was that the seven factors were 1 – 6. Obamacare 7. Medical Malpractice costs. But I was wrong, except for the last item.

According to the article the seven factors are:

1. Paying doctors per treatment and not for health outcomes.

2. A population that is growing older and fatter.

3.  Desire for the newest drugs and treatments.

4. Tax breaks for health insurance, which encourages companies to provide insurance with low deductibles and co-pays for a bigger tax write down, but which allows employees to over-use health care.

5. Poorly informed consumers.

6. Hospital consolidation.

7. Legal issues, like medical malpractice fears and costs, but also fraudulent billing and other issues.

The full report was prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation and PBS News Hour. It is available here.

The cost of the two main government medical programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are rising at unsustainable rates. We, as a nation, will not get those costs under control until we get the rising costs of health care under control. That is no easy task, but it will only be done by addressing all of the causes, and not simply blaming it on one cause among many.

The Cost of Mining Coal

Here’s an excellent article from the Washington Post about the rising cost of mining coal. This rising cost accounts for its declining use. The costs are rising largely because the coal that is the easiest to get was mined first, and now what is left is more difficult, and expensive, to obtain.
Cost of mining coal.

According to Marie Shmaruk, a director at Standard & Poor’s who analyzes metals and mining companies: “We have been relatively negative on central Appalachia for quite some time because it’s an expensive area to mine,” she said. “It’s been mined out and has thinning coal seams. We’ve been mining there forever.”

Shmaruk said that “central Appalachia is being squeezed the most. At natural gas prices today, the coal in a lot of those mines is not really competitive. And you’re seeing a lot of the utilities in that area have moved to natural gas.”

If there is a war on coal, the opponent is low cost natural gas, not environmentalists.

Personality and Political Orientation

An article in Salon summarizes the research from a new book, “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.”

Briefly, those who are disposed towards order and hierarchy tend to be Republicans, and those who tend to be adventurous and free thinkers tend to support Democrats.

Here’s the article. How your Personality Predicts Your Politics.

More on this later.

And the Rich grow Richer

Here’s a link to a fascinating story and analysis on the growth of wealth at the top. The number that jumped out for me was that in 1982, just over 15 percent of the 400 wealthiest Americans made their fortune in manufacturing. Today is is just a bit below 4 percent.

Why the Rich Grow Richer

The article analyzes the changes in the tax code, and other government policy since the late 1970’s, and how it has altered wealth creation in America.

Red versus Blue Economy

In his speech to the Democratic National Convention Bill Clinton said that since President Kennedy was in office Democratic presidents have produced 42 million jobs while Republican presidents produced only 24 million jobs.

Bloomberg news ran the numbers and agree with Clinton.

Here’s the Chart:Bloomberg Jobs Chart

Here’s the full article: Democratic Jobs