Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two large government-sponsored housing companies, rolled out a plan today that would ease requirements for homeowners seeking to modify their mortgage payments, allowing many to remain in their homes and avoid foreclosure.

The program would allow homeowners who are behind on their mortgages by at least 90 days to seek a modification without having to document financial hardship, as they have in the past. That requirement often made it harder for homeowners to get a loan modification that would help them get current on their loans, but the new rules would make it easier to lower their monthly payments, the Los Angeles Times reports:

The streamlined modification program, to be put into effect in July, would reduce monthly payments by about 30% on average, officials said in announcing the program Wednesday.

Eligible borrowers would receive letters explaining the modification offer and specifying the reduced payment. If they made three monthly payments during a trial modification period, the new loan terms would become permanent — without them having to document their financial situations.

The two entities and their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, have faced criticism for not doing more to help homeowners, especially amid the shortcomings of the Obama administration’s signature housing efforts, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). Modification efforts were hurt by banks that often didn’t process those documents as quickly as they processed foreclosures. That has led to wrongful foreclosures and claims of fraud and false documentation, both of which were major elements of the mortgage settlement the federal government reached with large banks last year.

The housing market has improved in recent months, helping the overall economic recovery. Millions of Americans are still underwater on their mortgages or facing the threat of foreclosure. Because Fannie and Freddie collectively back roughly half of American mortgages, this change will help address that problem.

The 20th century was a difficult century for the utopian vision — the quest for an ideal society free from humanity’s chief miseries. The Communist revolutions in Russia and China were supposed to usher in egalitarian utopias where all social needs were met by benevolent state planning. Instead these Communist revolutions produced brutal authoritarian regimes where privileged bureaucracies ruled over the masses and lagged far behind the advanced West in meeting social needs.

In the advanced West, social democrats pursued a gentler utopian ideal that envisioned an egalitarian society of abundance with social control of the economy and enhanced democracy in the workplace and throughout society. But the welfare state model ran into troubles starting in the 1970’s as economic growth slowed and the inefficiencies of the system became ripe targets for conservative political forces. Support for the socialist ideal began to falter. The coup de grace was administered by the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European states. Socialist societies turned their backs on the idea and embraced capitalism with gusto. Even Western European parties that still called themselves socialist abandoned any pretense that they were seeking to create an actual socialist society.

There was also a utopian impulse in America, though it had its roots in the more diffuse political traditions of liberalism and progressive reform. The idea here was that society could gradually perfect itself through a process of continuous reform that would weed out injustice and deliver prosperity for all. That idea came to a head with the Great Society of the 1960’s but sputtered out soon thereafter, battered first by counter-cultural and political radicalism and then by a nascent conservatism fueled, as in Europe, by economic problems that exposed underlying governmental inefficiencies. Over time, the liberal movement backed far away from the Great Society and its expansive vision of social justice and became resolutely focused on maintaining American social programs or, at best, their modest expansion.

Counter-cultural and political radicalism had their own utopian impulse of course. In the 1960’s, visions of society ranging from participatory democracy (Students for a Democratic Society) to communal bliss (hippies) to endless Marxist-Leninist revolution (Maoists) danced in the heads of young radicals. But such hubris did not survive the grimmer atmosphere of the 1970’s, not to mention the pressures of the life-cycle as these young radicals entered their thirties and forties.

As the Left’s utopian dreams faded, surging conservatives attacked vigorously. They argued that all of the left’s failings and especially its visions of a future society were attributable to their fundamentally unrealistic beliefs about human nature. People were selfish and acquisitive, not cooperative and solidaristic as the Left mistakenly believed. Therefore, the vision of society we should all strive for is a society without government and taxes where selfishness would be unleashed and individuals could shape their own destiny free of the oppressive hand of the state. This Ayn Rand-style libertarian utopia became an inspiration to legions of conservative activists.

Read more

States across the country are pushing tax cuts as a way to stimulate economic growth, and an Arkansas House Committee joined them yesterday by approving an income tax cut and raising an exemption on investment taxes. While approving two tax proposals that will largely benefit the wealthy, however, the committee rejected a proposal that would give a tax break to low-income families.

The efforts are aimed at stimulating job and economic growth, according to Republican state legislators, the Associated Press reports:

The income tax proposal, which will cost the state about $57 million a year, is expected to be the largest piece of the tax cut package being negotiated. The proposal would lower the top income tax rate from 7 percent to 6.875 percent and increase the minimum income it applies to from $34,000 to $44,000. The reduction would take effect for the 2014 tax year. The lawmaker behind the idea said it would help Arkansas generate jobs by making its tax rate more competitive with surrounding states. [...]

The panel also endorsed Carter’s proposal to increase the income tax exemption on capital gains of at least $5 million from 30 percent to 70 percent. It would also create a 70 percent exemption for any net capital gains relating to the sale of Arkansas property acquired after Jan. 1, 2014.

Even as it raises the minimum amount needed to qualify for taxation, the income tax proposal would grant more than half of its benefits to Arkansans who make more than $155,000 a year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The capital gains exemption, which ITEP calls one of the two “most regressive state income tax loopholes,” would only benefit wealthy families. But cutting taxes to stimulate growth isn’t the best strategy: a report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released this week found that states that implemented tax cuts in the 1990s saw slower economic growth afterward than states that did not.

At the same time, the committee rejected a proposed Earned Income Tax Credit that would have given breaks to low-income residents, just as the EITC does on federal taxation. Arkansas’ tax code is already among the most regressive in the country, according to ITEP. It’s poorest residents pay 11.9 percent of their income in taxes, the 10th highest percentage among the 50 states and Washington DC. The richest one percent of its residents pay just 6 percent of their income in taxes. Gov. Mike Beebe (D) has warned the legislature that his budget does not include room for costly tax cuts, which should prevent Arkansas’ House Republicans from making the tax code even more regressive.

Ed. note: This is the second post in a TP Ideas symposium on Branko Milanovic’s The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality. The first is here and the third is here.

Branko Milanovic’s book is a treasure trove of information and insight about inequality both within nations and across countries and populations. In the spirit of reducing inequalities of knowledge between readers of the book and those who haven’t yet had time to flip through it, here is a list of some of the more interesting findings and conclusions from his research:

1. John Rockefeller was the richest person ever. Comparing incomes across eras (adjusted as best as possible to a common standard that measures wealth and income in relation to historical and global context), John D. Rockefeller is probably the richest person in history because his wealth at its height in 1937 (about $1.4 billion) allowed him to command the most labor of others (about 116,000 people) in the then richest country in the world.  “The people whom he [Rockefeller] could hire would easily fill Pasadena’s Rose Bowl, and even quite a few would have remained outside of the gates.”

This puts Rockefeller’s wealth above that of the rich Roman Marcus Crassus who could command the labor of around 32,000 people; Andrew Carnegie who could command the labor of about 48,000 people; and Bill Gates who could hire about 75,000 people.  Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim is probably the richest person locally, with wealth capable of commanding the labor of around 400,000 people (but the low overall wealth of Mexicans make this less commanding than Rockefeller who was at his height of wealth in a comparatively richer country.)

2. Communism improved income inequality, but created new forms of hierarchy in its place.  Socialist countries like Russia, Hungary and Poland recorded some of the lowest measures of inequality in the post-war era.  How?  Basically by reducing the wealth and income of the then richest people in these respective countries and implementing full employment policies, free education, and other transfers to level incomes among people.  However, these policies took away nearly all incentives to work harder since “individual education, skill, and the like are immaterial” in societies like these.  In turn, economic productivity in communist societies declined and new “status”-based inequalities emerged where well-connected party elites enjoyed riches and leisure and ordinary workers did not.

“The rise and fall of communism may be interpreted in many different ways…First,..[i]t shows that distributions can be altered by different political arrangements.  Second, it shows that economic leveling (combined with political coercion) leads to stagnation and ultimately decline.  Third, it shows that it is important that the elites’ behavior not be overtly out of step with the ideological justification of their rule.  The financial elite on Wall Street may be well advised to ponder the third lesson.”

3. Barack Obama’s family was poorer than you know. President Barack Obama’s paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama (born in Kenya in 1895), had a household per capita income of 240 shillings per year, making him better off than about 90 percent of the population of Kenya.  Despite this advantage relative to his compatriots, the average per capita income of Asian and European colonizers in Kenya was estimated to be about 3,300 shillings per year and 16,000 shillings per year, respectively.

The “current U.S. president’s grandfather was thus working as a manservant or cook in a household of people whose incomes were sixty-six times greater than his own.  Onyango would have to work for an entire year to make as much as his British employer would make in less than a week.”

4. Poor people really do carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. It takes 77 percent of the world’s population to make up the first 20 percent of global income.  It takes 12 percent of people worldwide to make up the next 20 percent; 5.6 percent the next tranche; 3.6 percent the one after that; and only 1.75 percent (the richest people in the world) to make up the final 20 percent of global income.

5. The global one percent is largely American. Adjusting global incomes based on purchasing power, government transfers, housing costs, etc, there are approximately 60 million people worldwide in the richest top percent of earners.  29 million of these people live in the United States.  “There is nobody from Africa, China, India, or from East Europe or Russia (in statistically significant numbers, of course).”

These are just a few of the fantastic bits of information in The Haves and Have-Nots.  For a truly global perspective on the subject of inequality, there’s no better book to pick up.

As large American companies continue to lobby Congress for tax reform that would lower their tax rates, a study of historical corporate tax rates found that they are in fact paying at rates roughly half of those they paid decades ago.

The Washington Post analyzed 30 large companies listed on the Dow Jones Industrial Average — companies like McDonalds, Microsoft, and Exxon Mobil — and found that their tax rates have fallen even as profits have risen, thanks in large part to tax laws that provide incentives to store overseas profits in offshore tax havens. Many of the companies, the Post found, are paying rates less than half what they paid in the 1960s and 1970s, and most of the 30 have vastly reduced their rates in that time:

A Washington Post analysis of data from S&P Capital IQ, a research firm, found that in the late 1960s and early 1970s, companies listed on the current Dow 30 routinely cited U.S. federal tax expenses that were 25 to 50 percent of their worldwide profits. Now, most are reporting less than half that share. [...]

Out of all the firms in the Dow 30, 22 have seen a drop of more than 10 percentage points between the oldest year for which data are available and the most recent year.

American tax law allows companies to shield foreign profits from taxation until they are brought back to the United States, and corporations have happily obliged. The largest 83 corporations moved $166 billion overseas in 2012 alone, bringing their total to $1.46 trillion, and most of it, according to a Congressional Research Service study, was kept in tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Ireland. As a result, they have seen huge reductions in tax rates: McDonald’s, for example, saw its tax rate plunge from 37 percent in 1973 to 14 percent in 2012.

Corporate profits hit a 60-year high in 2011, right as the effective corporate tax rate hit a 40-year low. America’s largest companies, in fact, haven’t paid the full corporate tax rate in 45 years, and 26 have avoided taxation altogether for the past four years. At the same time, business leaders have lobbied Congress to reform the corporate tax code by adopting a territorial tax system that would exempt most foreign profits from American taxation, making it even easier for the companies to shift profits, investments, and jobs overseas.

One analysis found that a territorial system would lead to the creation of 800,000 jobs in other countries that otherwise could have been created in the United States. An alternative tax reform that closes corporate loopholes that lead to the offshoring of profits and jobs wouldn’t bring the tax rate back to historical levels, but it would still generate roughly $168 billion in revenue over the next decade.

With the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in two separate cases about marriage equality this week, one of America’s most iconic companies is joining the fight. One of the popular ways Americans displayed support for equality was by posting a picture of an equal sign inside a red box on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks, and Bud Light did the same, posting this picture to its Facebook page yesterday:

Bud Light’s support for equality isn’t unique in the American business community. NPR reported Monday that 278 businesses had signed on to a brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, including recognizable companies like Nike, Apple, Starbucks, and Citigroup. Not a single company filed briefs arguing that DOMA was good for business.

DOMA and the lack of equal marriage rights prohibit same-sex couples from taking advantage tax breaks and spousal benefits that are available to married couples. That hurts individuals and the larger economy, and for businesses, it hurts their bottom lines and impedes efforts to foster more inclusive work environments. As Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein argued, restrictions like DOMA mean people “can’t move around, they’re unhappy, and we can’t attract a whole set of very talented people.” Bud Light is just the latest brand to realize that equality is good for business.

The Supreme Court will today hear oral arguments in the case against the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that denies equal federal benefits to couples who are legally married under state law and also burdens families and the federal government.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that DOMA increases the deficit by roughly $1 billion a year, and while that amount is small, striking it down would save far more than ending subsidies to NPR or some of the other “deficit reduction” ideas Republicans have pursued in the past.

Those savings would come from numerous sources. Tax revenues would rise by more than $400 million a year, and though costs on programs like Social Security and federal benefits would increase, costs for safety net programs like Medicare, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and other programs would go down.

That’s significant, because the largest benefit from recognizing same-sex marriages comes from what it would do for individual couples and families. Same-sex couples aren’t allowed to file joint taxes, which prohibits them from claiming some tax credits and deductions that would benefit their families. They also aren’t eligible for spousal health, Social Security, or federal pension benefits, making it harder for some LGBT families to make ends meet. Older LGBT couples are more likely to live in poverty than married heterosexual seniors, which is why ending DOMA would reduce costs for programs like Medicaid and SSI — access to spousal benefits would lift many LGBT Americans out of poverty and off of the social safety net.

Striking down DOMA is important primarily to provide LGBT Americans equal protection under the law. But it’s also important because it will benefit the American economy by helping businesses, reducing the deficit, and lifting people out of poverty.