iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

'Give It Back For Jobs' Helps Affluent Return Tax Cuts

Random Act Of Kindness

First Posted: 12/30/10 10:36 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

For affluent Americans outraged by the fiscal and social consequences of tax cuts handed to them by President George W. Bush and recently extended for two more years, a trio of similarly dismayed academics has furnished a way for them to put their money where their mouth is.

Their new website, giveitbackforjobs.org, invites high-income Americans to calculate the value of their tax cut under the extension and then pledge to donate that money directly to charities that the site says encourage "fairness, economic growth, and a vibrant middle class." The site doesn't accept contributions directly, but links users to those charities.

The site has been engineered to offer Americans who view the tax cuts as misguided a means to personally direct dollars toward countering the effects, while also registering a protest for broad policies that have exacerbated economic inequality.

"It's like civil disobedience," said Daniel Markovits, a professor at Yale Law School, and one of the three academics behind the initiative. "You're not committing a crime, but the government says, 'This is what you should give,' and you're saying, 'No, I should give more.'"

President Obama took office last year on a pledge to end the tax cuts lavished by his predecessor on the wealthiest American households. But he agreed to continue the cuts via a controversial compromise with Republicans in Congress in which he gained an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, while also securing the renewal of lowered taxes for middle-class households.

The deal landed as a bitter disappointment to liberal economists, who have assailed it for perpetuating the conditions that have led millions of ordinary Americans to take on impossible debts in recent years to finance housing, health care and education while their wages have stagnated. The tax cuts accelerated a long-term flow of increased shares of national wealth to the most affluent households, leaving smaller and smaller slices for everyone else

Give It Back For Jobs aims to narrow the gap by effectively mimicking the tax policy that would have been in place had the Bush tax cuts been allowed to expire. Had the tax cuts gone off the books, more dollars would have flowed into federal coffers, making more money available to pursue job-creating public works projects and aid to now ailing states and local communities. The new website seeks to compensate for those lost tax revenues by inviting wealthy Americans to voluntarily contribute equivalent funds to social service groups that are focused on aiding people contending with the weak economy.

"It's private collective action that builds upon itself and, in effect, amounts to a kind of shadow tax policy," said Robert Hockett, a professor at Cornell Law School, and another force behind the site. "It's a partial representation of what a proper tax policy would be."

The website grows out of a similar effort that Markovits and Hockett unleashed five years ago in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, called givebackthetaxcut.org, which raised around $250,000 in relief aid.

They viewed that disaster, and the dearth of help for people affected, as more than an accident: They saw it as the outgrowth of policies that have favored the wealthy while leaving middle class and poor Americans to fend for themselves.

"When Katrina struck, we were both sort of astonished," said Hockett. "It was a humanly facilitated disaster. It seemed it was no coincidence that the failure coincided with unbelievably gigantic tax cuts."

That site employed a tax calculator, much like the one on giveitbackforjobs.org, and it, too, invited people to donate money that they would have been giving the government absent the Bush tax cuts.

Ironically, that calculator was designed by none other than Peter Orszag, who headed Obama's Office of Management and Budget, and recently took a senior executive position at the Wall Street goliath Citibank. He played no role in developing the new site.

"He's busy with other things now," Hockett said wryly.

For the new site, Hockett and Markovits joined forces with Jacob Hacker, a Yale political scientist who has written frequently about economic inequality and the strains of the middle class.

"The 2001 tax cuts were a really terrible policy," Hacker said. "They were really skewed towards the rich in the 20 years in which the rich got much richer. To sustain that policy in the face of majority popular support for ending tax cuts for the rich is a pretty egregious example of what I call 'winner-take-all' politics."

The tax cuts will give about $300,000 to taxpayers in the top one-tenth of one percent of the bracket, or those making $2 million in annual income and above. The median tax cut is about $1,000.

Far from a conduit for money to flow to social service groups, Give It Back For Jobs is pitched by its creators as a way to enable political action, while giving contributors the means of proving their convictions and sharing in a collective undertaking.

"People are privately incredibly generous," said Markovits. "There are a quite a few people who would like society as a whole to be juster, to let their private commitments be translated into a language that says, 'We are in this together.'"

The professors chose to give the money to charities in part as a rebuke of what they portray as an inadequate federal response to the long-running national economic crisis.

"We're trying to immediately and directly support programs the government ought to be doing," said Markovits.

They have opted to target organizations focused on expanding access to health care and housing, and those that train unemployed workers for new careers.

"We wanted the categories to have an obvious connection with economic downturn," said Hockett.

Some view the site as more symbolic than substantive--a kind of feel-good effort that does not alter the real economic policies that have assailed the middle class and working poor. In this view, such policies can be changed only by the White House and Congress, and that will only happen through advocacy and effective political organization.

"If you want to get anywhere with this agenda, you won't get anywhere by being nice," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "It's like going to a gunfight with an olive branch."

But the professors behind Give It Back For Jobs dismiss such criticisms, while asserting that they have realistic aims.

"We don't think this is suddenly going to raise all the money it would have raised if tax cuts on the wealthy had been allowed to expire," said Markovits.

Rather, he suggested, the new website may alter the national debate, raising awareness of the consequences of extending the tax cuts, and setting up conditions for a different policy trajectory in the years ahead.

"If people took a cold shower for a moment, and got a little bit more reflective, surely they would realize that one of the things that the funding of a government is for is to assist those who are suffering through no fault of their own," said Hockett.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST IMPACT

For affluent Americans outraged by the fiscal and social consequences of tax cuts handed to them by President George W. Bush and recently extended for two more years, a trio of similarly dismayed acad...
For affluent Americans outraged by the fiscal and social consequences of tax cuts handed to them by President George W. Bush and recently extended for two more years, a trio of similarly dismayed acad...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7,520
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (83 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GreenKate
12:47 AM on 01/04/2011
"We pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
If you think what our Founders did for us and then look at Republican hatred of giving anything it is sad. If our founders had been Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell we would not have a country. They all love war but dodged military service and don't believe in giving anything for their country. Yet they all have drawn a fortune from the taxpayers in salaries, pensions, insurance, and whatever they could steal. GOP: please don't carry on with your Faux patriotism and flag waving, it is insulting.
09:38 PM on 01/10/2011
Their only credible point is fiscal awareness. The Dem power structure also postures sweetly- but its benevalance is funded by cross generational theft by my Boomer generation.
09:51 AM on 01/03/2011
How can someone "give back" something that wasn't given to them? The government did not give these people their money, so it cannot be "given back" to the government.

A better appeal would be to call for the difference (or more) to be donated to a worthy cause or charity. The government's track record of fraud, waste, and abuse has proven that they do not deserve more tax dollars and must learn to spend wehat they are given more frugally.

And just in case I'm not making my point, if a robber holds me up and takes only $80 of $100 I have on me, did he just give me $20? By your reasoning, he did.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
10:38 AM on 01/03/2011
They aren't giving back to the government, read the article.  They would be giving back to society, which has created the context in which they achieved their success.
03:13 PM on 01/03/2011
Lol! I should have had my coffee first!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sue Bryant
04:03 PM on 01/04/2011
They're not giving it back to the government. They are giving it back to the society that helped make them millions.
06:16 PM on 01/02/2011
Another absurd liberal idea. How about college and university profs and administrators as well as college sports coaches donating a portion of their high pay to the same causes. Check this list of college football coach salaries where 58 of such coaches have mininum salaries of at least $1,000,000 and range up to over $5,000,000 per year and many of whom are at public universities!!!! http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-coaches-contracts-database.htm
 
What about all those public employees who earn 6 figures on the public tax dime and then receive 90-95% of that same salary as a pension for the rest of their lives? What about those receiving six figure pensions as well? What about their donations?
 
From the Boston Globe: "Since December 2007, when the current downturn began, the ranks of federal employees earning $100,000 and up has skyrocketed. According to a recent analysis by USA Today, federal workers making six-figure salaries - not including overtime and bonuses - “jumped from 14 percent to 19 percent of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months.’’"
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/27/income_angst_not_for_public_employees/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
12:34 AM on 01/03/2011
What about those genius's that bankrupted the wall street banks and took big bonuses for doing it? And if you think college professors make big money, then you are not living in the real world . The idea, by the way, came from wealthy people who understand that no one gets wealthy on their own. They realize that they need to give back or this whole thing is close to collapsing. So genius, you better get a clue, because so far it is clear that you don't have even one. The government workers being referred to here were Bush cronies, who were paid to not do their jobs. That costs more you know. You should really consider connecting the dots.
11:25 AM on 01/04/2011
Clearly you have no idea how much a college professor makes at a higher learning institution. You're citing the overall mean and the salary of sports coach when they clearly make 1000x more than the average professor. Do your homework before posting ridiculous cr@p like this.
05:15 PM on 01/02/2011
I can't believe that anyone in the top tax bracket will "give back even one cent". Maybe I'm just a pessimist or maybe I'm a realist. I guess time will tell. What do you think?
photo
Gonzo36
Pro-awesome!
05:25 PM on 01/02/2011
In 2006 family foundations (one of the ways wealthy families give to the public) gave 16 billion dollars. That is a lot of cash they could have kept for themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
08:25 PM on 01/02/2011
And still we have more and more people out of work, homeless, falling into poverty, filing bankruptcy, not getting health care, not knowing what tomorrow will bring. But you don't have to care, you gave to charity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
08:30 PM on 01/02/2011
And lose the tax deductions? I think not. You wouldn't get to play g odd either.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SonicUltimate
10:39 AM on 01/03/2011
There are a select few who might.  However, charity has never been a substantial method of creating a strong society.  If we could rely on altruism, taxes wouldn't even exist, let alone government.
Tara Hunkoff
I could have been Sheila Noyeau
10:40 PM on 01/07/2011
Well said! Good governments do indeed exist to protect the Benign Many from the Malignant Few.

Now, bad governments - well, that's a whole different thread . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
I3edlam
Pick your foma.
02:08 PM on 01/02/2011
Perhaps this is the way things can progress towards social and communal creativity in the midst of redundant and myopic injustices. Bless the internet in it's capacity to allow us to sidestep the designs of the intractable and ignorant. It's something special to see the people taking on the duties of the government upon themselves. Here's to the good of the people , and to those who know what matter in life.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
01:54 PM on 01/02/2011
It is true the righters and the tea braggers want to end social security and medica for retired folks, even though there is no problem with it. Why not have an opt out for that as well, it unreleastic to think that most people make enough money to retire as millionaires. I guess if they lived on bread and water and in their car for 30 years, it may be feasible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
12:42 PM on 01/02/2011
http://abcnews.go.com/gma/video/cost-of-living-2011-12513808&tab=9482930§ion=1206852&playlist=12513625

This is part of what tanked our economy to begin with. Why are they raising prices and crippling our economy, yeah right it's because more people are traveling, it is a corporate tax to offset what they will spend on the elections. She says the economy is better and we can afford more so gas will be $4 or more per gallon and everyhting else will go up as well. Oh yeah we can afford more! Thanks Tea Baggers. Then they will try to blame democrats and the poor. Unbelievable.
01:10 PM on 01/02/2011
#53. Shall we also mention that oil reserves are past peak output. There is only going to less and less from here on out and higher prices that go with a shortage. BP was drilling a mile deep in the ocean for a reason.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
01:33 PM on 01/02/2011
My point is not whether there is an oil shortage or not, if that is the reason the prices ar higher that is not being said in the above talk. Why not? The reason being given is that the economy is so much better we must now pay more cuz we can afford it. This is a complete dichotomy statement which is worrisome to hear. We are also being told that we are in the worst recession in 70 years, Obama of two years is being blamed, we are being told that a green economy is a bad idea and that there is no climate cisis, but on the other hand she is saying there is a problem with the food supply due to weather changes and obviously some problem with the fuel supply also if unspoken. For the sake of logic please, these d=facts do not add up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Buhl
12:35 PM on 01/02/2011
This is a great idea...but how on earth is this even remotely akin to civil disobedien­ce? What a ridiculous analogy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
12:11 PM on 01/02/2011
Found one article on the Tarp. There is also a live accounting from Bernie Sanders In Congress which reveals where all the money went. Having a conversation about Government, spending and taxes etc without this new revelatory information is pretty pointless and goes on very old assumptions. I still have not digested what all this implicates, but it is not good, that's why it was hidden..

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/sen-bernie-sanders-tarp-pocket-change-compared-to-fed/
01:04 PM on 01/02/2011
Wow, I stopped and read it. That's quite a bomb that you dropped. Bernie Sanders spends an hour a week with Thom Hartmann on progressive talk radio. www.thomhartmann.com.

“What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.”

“We also learned that the Fed’s multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald’s, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.

"Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks — Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse — which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities”.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/sen-bernie-sanders-tarp-pocket-change-compared-to-fed/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
01:46 PM on 01/02/2011
Thanks for that, had not heard of him before.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
11:37 AM on 01/02/2011
I think this is good idea. There should be an opt out of taxes for people who do not like the government or half the country. Let the rest of us pay in and receive the benefits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
11:20 AM on 01/02/2011
Thanks for this ray of light to the smart, sane and generous humans out there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blizzard2010
10:52 AM on 01/02/2011
You can always send more money to you beloved government. Just stay out of my wallet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
11:20 AM on 01/02/2011
Keep your money, who wants it form folks like you anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blizzard2010
01:43 PM on 01/02/2011
People like you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ta8ersalid
The End of the GOP Starts in Nov. 2012
03:01 AM on 01/02/2011
They need to donate any monies back to individuals that would open a buisness, hire American workers and pay a decent wage, with possible partial ownership of that buisness.

Its called investment Capital, something the banks and government do not seem to understand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
09:50 AM on 01/02/2011
The part that you don't get, is that people cannot manage a job if they don't have housing, health, transportation and daycare. (the basics) Many people have not been socialized/trained to manage a job. Again, without those basics being addressed, they are not likely to be successful at getting or holding a job. Government jobs are a good way to get the ball rolling. People can learn to manage a job at the expense of the government and then they can become more employable in the private sector. The money they spend in the economy can help private businesses get started. It is the failure of the republicans to see this that has caused us to stall. The repubs are only focused on those who have already succeeded. But that is time limited in this country, since with the reduction of consumer potential, the rich will move on to make their killing in other countries, which is exactly what they have been doing. We have to understand that the solutions that repubs offer are old, tired and haven't worked and are getting further away from working. Charities have never offered a complete solution. If they had, then all the programs that were established wouldn't have been necessary. Charity obviously, only goes so far and charity sidesteps the real needs of society. We have experts on getting things going again in this country, but typically, the repubs are ignoring them, just like they did when we went into Iraq.
photo
Gonzo36
Pro-awesome!
10:41 AM on 01/02/2011
You know what I think would REALLY change things? If the USA would put a comprehensive financial class (or classes) in every high school. And I dont mean how to balance a checkbook. I mean they should teach every kid financial literacy including how the stock market works, how mutual funds work, bonds, real estate, house hold budgets, loans, compound interest, retirement funds, risk vs reward, etc. I believe this education would help level the playing field btwn the haves and the have-nots. Will it fix everything? Of course not. But right now there are very few people that understand how money works due to the fact it isnt even DISCUSSED (emphasis) in school. How are people supposed to make educated decisions about their finances when they have had no education about financial matters?
photo
Gonzo36
Pro-awesome!
06:59 PM on 01/01/2011
(continued from a lower post that had gotten too long...)

Chuchulain: There are pros and cons to being on the gold standard (gs) and being off the gs. Neither is perfect. What I am saying is, one of the major reasons for the inequality btwn the wealthy and the poor is due to the fact we are off the gs. The other is globalization. Both of these contribute to the world economy we are experiencing today. The 'problem' is- both Republicans and Democrats are proponents of both of these ideals. There is (at this time) no going back. So what can be done? You can either see the world for what it is, under the rules in place right now, or you can lament the way things were. In my opinion, because both parties are for no gs and for globalization, the only way to continue is to figure out how the rules can work for YOU (emphasis).
cuchulain
Occupy the Tao
09:01 PM on 01/01/2011
But you haven't made the case for your assertion. You haven't demonstrated why going off the gold standard impacted inequality in the slightest. And it makes no sense that it would.

Again, history shows dozens of nations under the gold standard with extremely high rates of inequality. We have that history, too. We were on the gold standard when the Great Depression hit, and many economists said going off the standard helped us reduce the time for that depression.

People get wealthy under every imaginable currency. Poor people live under every imaginable currency. The currency doesn't dictate what ownership pays workers. That's their choice. They don't have to pay themselves 400 times the rank and file. That's their choice. They could go back to the days of 26 to 1 if they wanted to -- with our without the gold standard.

There simply is no connection between inequality and the lack of the gold standard. We know this because massive inequality existed WITH the gold standard, as did economic collapse, wars, empire, famine, etc. etc. etc.
photo
Gonzo36
Pro-awesome!
09:23 PM on 01/01/2011
When money was tied to actual gold there was a finite amount that could circulate. When we went off the gold standard the USA could print as much money as it wanted to. (I understand inflation, deflation, etc- but lets not go into that). This enabled the American economy to grow at a fast pace. According to wiki: "The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[26] Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $8.3 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (M2).[27" Therefore if we had stayed on the gold standard, there wouldnt be nearly as much money in the economy as we have now. As you stated, in a Capitalist society, money flows up. So the wealthy get wealthier.

But I also mentioned globalization. That has also cause a wide gap btwn the have and have-nots. As you well know, the working class in America has been slowly disappearing due to Big Business going overseas because the labor is cheaper. This is one of the reasons the regular worker has been making about the same amount for decades.

The third factor is the stock market which I will write about below: (tbc...)
Tara Hunkoff
I could have been Sheila Noyeau
10:55 PM on 01/07/2011
I'm with ya on this one, cuchulain!

The only possible halfway-reasonable argument in favor of a gold (or any other commodity) standard is something along the lines of, "I have more faith in the ability of geologists and miners to reduce gold to surface possession than I do in the ability of millions of people to produce economic goods and services."


As much as I admire geologists, they ain't been finding a lot of gold lately. At current prices, I'd be out there digging like Wilt Chamberlain for a credit card in a whorehouse.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ta8ersalid
The End of the GOP Starts in Nov. 2012
02:53 AM on 01/02/2011
Gonzo has is correct.
Fractional banking and no gold standard lets the banks and federal government make Money out of thin air which leads to constant inflation which is like a direct tax to the people.

When the government/banks create too much money, the value of that money decreases and buys less. To make this simple, imagine you are living on a fixed income for 10 or more years.

What has happened to that income over that time period? Can you buy the same amount of Milk with the same amount of money?

Simple: NO.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rshrink
10:01 AM on 01/02/2011
Boy have you ever overlooked a ton of other relevant factors to reach a bogus conclusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Coyote1177
11:49 AM on 01/02/2011
Have you seen what came out recently about where the Tarp money went all to global banks? If not its' a must see. Our own treasury has abandoned th US economy. This proves what many have suspected. It's a mess, not until we get to the bottom of the corruption and really get control back of our own gov, banking and all else will be able to have betterment, all this partisan in fighting is really a red herring to distract people from what is really going on, which does not work on behalf of any of us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
urbanlife
06:51 PM on 01/01/2011
Nice symbolic gesture, but donating money to charities isn't going to create many jobs. To create jobs there needs to be a significant increase in demand for domestic goods. "Made In The USA" has lost its meaning