A friend suggested I subscribe to Andrew Tobias’ Blog, and I did. He mostly writes about economics, and I enjoy his clear explanations. You can subscribe for free at Andrewtobias.com.
I have strongly disagreed with him only once, when he raved about the test scores at Eva Moskowitz’s test prep Academies and suggested that she had created a new model. We have been engaged in a discussion on this issue since then.
This is his latest. If you want to read the links, go to his website.
A Republican touting the much-criticized tax bill recently told viewers to go to fairandsimple.gop to see the truth about it.
So I did.
The bill has three goals:
More Jobs. The bill will “make America the jobs magnet of the world.”
Maybe. But the Wall Street Journal (here) and the Financial Times (here) worry it could cost jobs.
Bigger Paychecks. “Americans’ taxes are too high, so we are lowering individual tax rates for low- and middle-income Americans.”
No mention is made of “high-income” or “obscenely-high-income” Americans — yet they will get by far the biggest reductions. You might get a thousand bucks, they might get a hundred thousand or a million. Is that adequately disclosed on the website?
And, by the way? Why are “Americans’ taxes too high?” Is it because we’re running a surplus, collecting more than we need? (No, we’ve already run up $20 trillion in accumulated deficits and will now, thanks to this tax cut, be growing that debt faster than the economy as a whole, just as Reagan, Bush, and Bush did.)
Is it because our infrastructure is in such awesome shape we can now cut back on maintaining it? (No, it’s in truly rotten shape — we desperately need to spend more.) Is it because we pay more than workers in other countries? (No, according to this, our workers pay a lower rate than those in Belgium, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, France, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovenia, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Greece, Estonia, Turkey, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Poland, Iceland, or Japan.)
Fairer Taxes. The bill will “make filing taxes so easy that you can use a form as simple as a postcard.”
First off, what does that have to do with fairness? Is it fair to give the lion’s share of the tax cut to people and corporations who don’t need it . . . and to do so at the expense of millions of lower-income Americans who will either lose their health insurance or see premiums increase? And at the expense of a higher National Debt whose consequences will hurt average Americans disproportionately?
But since the postcard aspect of this is what Republicans seem to mean by “fairer” — no, people will not be filing on postcards. Start with the “simplification” of the child tax credit, as per this 1,100-word explanation in Forbes. In part:
. . . Under tax reform, part of the Child Tax Credit remains nonrefundable but the “old” Additional Child Tax Credit, which was refundable, has essentially been merged into the new credit. I know that sounds confusing but what it means is that the Child Tax Credit is just one credit worth up to $2,000 per child and includes a refundable piece of up to $1,400 per child. To be clear, the $1,400 refundable piece is included as part of the $2,000 Child Tax Credit and is not an additional credit (unlike before).
A refundable credit means that you can take advantage of the credit even if you do not owe any tax. Unlike with a nonrefundable credit, if you don’t have any tax liability, the “extra” credit is not lost but is instead refunded to you. To claim the refundable portion, you must have earned income (generally, wages, salary, tips, and net earnings from self-employment). For purposes of the new Child Tax Credit, the refundable portion is equal to 15% of your earned income which exceeds $4,500 up to the maximum credit.
. . . If you have three or more qualifying children, you can use an alternative formula to determine the refundable portion. Under the alternative formula, the refundable portion is equal to the amount by which your Social Security taxes (those taken out of your wages or paid out as self-employment taxes) exceed your earned income credit (sometimes called EIC or EITC).
I know that this tax reform was supposed to be about simplification, but not when it comes to the Child Tax Credit. In order to claim the credit, you must file a federal form 1040, federal form 1040A, or a federal form 1040NR. You cannot claim the child tax credit using form 1040-EZ.
The main thing, of course: HAVE A WONDERFUL NEW YEAR.
Drive safely!

Why do people think “simple” = “fair”? The feudal system was very simple – your lord simply came by and took what he wanted and had his soldiers beat you up if you resisted. No paperwork needed – not even a postcard.
Not exactly fair, though.
LikeLike
The GOP tax fraud is about theft and destruction. Period!
LikeLike
If clear explanation is what you seek than . Try Baker as well.
“Washington Post Presents More Evidence of Skills Gap Troubling Employers ”
” “Firms that save money from the tax cuts may simply be unable to find more workers to hire at the price they are willing to pay.” Wa. Post
There are always workers out there. They may work for a competitor or live in another city, but for a high enough wage they will change jobs or move. According to the Post piece, many employers don’t seem to understand this basic fact, leaving them unable to get the workers they say they need. ………
“This is really the core of the problem. There is apparently a huge skills gap among employers at firms across the country. They don’t seem to understand basic market principles. If they want to hire more workers then they have to offer higher wages. “…
“It is also worth noting that these labor shortage pieces are 180 degrees at odds with the robots taking our jobs story. That is a story of a labor glut. It is incredible that we often see these stories of labor shortages and labor glut running side by side. It would be like having an article warning of bone-chilling cold right next to an article talking about a record heat wave. In principle, one or the other can be the case, but both cannot be true at the same time.”
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/washington-post-presents-more-evidence-of-skills-gap-troubling-employers
LikeLike
The piece of the Child Tax Credit reminds me of some passages in ESSA. I did look at some other posts and found that he nothing insightful about public education. He complained that it is “mostly public.”
For economic insights I prefer Robert Reich, and not just because he makes drawings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQsaE3u_ou0
LikeLike
I’m sorry but it is hard to take seriously anyone who does not understand basic economics. Andrew Tobias’ wholesale embrace of Success Academy’s superiority and uncritical acceptance of their near 100% passing rates makes me doubt his judgement.
He reminds me of New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait who makes some good observations but whose sound abilities at reason somehow leave his mind as soon as it comes to certain charter chains who are the favorites of billionaires.
To wit, when results are too good to be true, when no other charter network in NYC comes close to matching them, when those inferior charter networks manage to keep so many more students than one that is supposedly far superior in every way, when no other charter network gets even a fraction of the naturally violent 5 year old children that Moskowitz claims her charter networks are overwhelmed with, it is time for writers like Tobias and Chait to start looking a little closer at what is going on instead of acting the way Trump voters do and believing everything that someone with a proven record of dishonesty has said.
Here is the “evidence” that convinces Tobias that critics offering data of the high attrition and suspension rates should be ignored because he is so certain of his rightness:
“two of the readers of this page turn out to be parents of students in that same school…”
Tobias actually reprints that statements of a husband and wife who I bet do NOT have at-risk kids and says that their child is treated marvelously, so Tobias knows that any critics must be wrong.
Can you imagine if Tobias decided that because a few rich people told him how great Trump’s tax plan is, he is free to ignore all data and insist that it is good.
Tobias is a fool. He isn’t simply someone friendly to charters in general. There are charter friendly people who understand that Success Academy does not get their results without harsh methods that get rid of the kids who they don’t want to teach. He is someone who is rabidly defending the woman who told us all that Betsy DeVos was a terrific choice for Secretary of Education who must be confirmed for the good of school children everywhere. She is a truth teller, says Tobias, and she never ever lies. Not even when she says that so many at-risk 5 year olds who win lottery seats (but not the kids of his readers) are violent.
Sorry if I find it hard to trust anything Tobias says. Maybe he believes Betsy DeVos is a terrific choice too. No doubt he does, since the woman whose praises he sings would never lie about anything just like Trump would never lie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NYCPSP,
I’m trying to educate him about SA.
LikeLike
Hooray! I hope he listens enough to question the hype instead of embracing it wholeheartedly. Thank you.
LikeLike
Tobias’s writing on the new tax law has been great.
LikeLike
GOP needed to rush tax cuts through before election season 2018. They didn’t have time for simplification.
LikeLike
The dilemma I face is that I am not a sophisticated consumer of financial information. I rely on the expertise of people who have a substantial career examining such information. Generally, I know very little about how they think about most issues, but I still listen to their advice and try to make educated decisions. So as soon as someone is revealed to hold a position on a subject on which they are not an expert that disagrees with my opinion, am i obligated to cross them off my invitation list?
LikeLike
I hope not. You don’t want to restrict yourself to financial writers who agree with all of your non-financial opinions.
LikeLike
Thank you. My point exactly.
LikeLike
FLERP!
Financial writers are not necessarily economic writers . Economics is far more enveloping . Many if not most human interactions can be examined and explained by their economic roots . From family structure to religious beliefs . . . Education and more specifically how we allocate educational resources and what the goals of education should be are inherently economic questions.
LikeLike
But Tobias has a pretty good handle on the new tax law and writes clearly.
LikeLike
FLERP!
Actually I was chiming in on the theme that your “your non-financial opinions.” may have more economic roots than you think . A Marxian analytical view , which does not make one a Marxist.
LikeLike
speduktr,
It is definitely important to read people who disagree with your opinions. However, it is also important to note when their disagreement is based on facts or a wholesale acceptance of dishonesty.
It’s the difference between Bruce Bartlett and Laura Ingraham.
You might still read something that Ingraham writes that is correct, but you take everything she says and writes with a grain of salt knowing that she is more than willing to overlook facts or change her views if she sees a career advantage. Her beliefs are malleable if she sees the chance to promote herself by embracing a different value. So everything you read by her should be understood in that context — it may sometimes be true and sometimes be false because she is writing with one thing in mind — to please any very rich people who make her career possible.
That’s not why Bruce Bartlett writes.
LikeLike
Again in line with what I was trying to say. Too often I feel like people’s opinions are rejected out of hand because they do not march to the same drummer. However, I am not likely to swallow whole someone’s opinion without further research even if it only involves posing a question to others who are capable of giving me informed opinions/advice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” . . Under tax reform, part of the Child Tax Credit remains nonrefundable but the “old” Additional Child Tax Credit, which was refundable, has essentially been merged into the new credit. I know that sounds confusing but what it means is that the Child Tax Credit is just one credit worth up to $2,000 per child and includes a refundable piece of up to $1,400 per child. To be clear, the $1,400 refundable piece is included as part of the $2,000 Child Tax Credit and is not an additional credit (unlike before)…”
LOL. This looks like a paragraph from a test David Coleman would give to 2nd graders to measure their college readiness.
LikeLike