View previous stories
	Human rights responses to the global economic crisis by ESCR-Net & agencies International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights   March 2010   At the opening of its 13th session on 1 March 2010, the UN Human Rights Council held a high-level panel discussion on the impact of global economic and financial crises on realization of human rights.   The panel was designed to provide a formal contribution to the Working Group of the United Nations General Assembly on follow-up to the outcome of the June 2009 UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development.   The high level panel showed strong convergence on what UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay described as the need for an "urgent shift" to ensure that stimulus packages and rescue operations do not just salvage the financial system and restore economic growth, but also directly address how individuals are affected, especially in their access to employment and social services.   ILO Director-General Juan Somavia raised the same political problem: "How come there is money to rescue big banks and support economic recovery, but when it comes to job recovery, we don"t have the money - we are told to wait another five years.... As fiscal constraints begin to emerge, there is a risk of backsliding to the same old recessionary policies of the past."   South Centre Executive Director Martin Khor urged governments facing tighter budgets - which imply a trade-off about what to cut - that the trade-off should "always side with human rights: protect jobs and social services rather than narrow commercial interests."   In the same vein, former Secretary-General of Amnesty International Irene Khan emphasized that human rights constitute the "ethical benchmark" or "moral compass" for testing the validity and effectiveness of any stimulus packages and other short- or long-term measures adopted by governments in response to the crisis.   João Ernesto Christófolo, a government representative from Brazil (which together with Egypt took the lead on this Human Rights Council initiative) insisted on the UN"s central role in responding to the crisis. Bringing in the human rights dimension must not only be about assessing impacts, but also shaping appropriate responses to the crisis, he said.   Senior UNCTAD economist Richard Kozul-Wright emphasized that the underlying causes of the current crisis were rooted in deregulation and privatization policies - affecting not only the economy but other spheres of life, including health, education, or post-disaster reconstruction.   The resulting "boom and bust" cycles of the last 10 or 20 years were an expression of the fragility of the system, characterized by the unsustainable accumulation of debt - notably to compensate for a deficiency in global aggregate demand caused in large part by a sharp growth in inequalities and rising shares of national incomes going to profits at the expense of wages.   This policy orientation meant a "capture of state" that defended the rights of certain groups (financiers, corporations) at the expense of other groups. Human rights advocates, he said, thus have to be aware that behind market fundamentalism lies a "rights-based" agenda focusing on a specific category of rights, namely property rights (whether expressed in terms of low taxes for the rich, the right to make windfall profits through socially harmful speculation, or intellectual property rights), over and above other categories of rights.   The challenge for the human rights community was how to rethink the role of the State and build a countervailing movement rooted in an alternative ethic based on social justice, solidarity and fairness.   * Visit the link below for more details. Visit the related web page
	Wealth for the Common Good by Chuck Collins, Warren Buffet USA   The challenge in these turbulent times is how to consistently and clearly explain the real causes of our current economic condition.   A just-released report from Wealth for the Common Good--a network of business leaders, high-income households and partners working together to promote shared prosperity and fair taxation is a welcome and common sense antidote.   This fact-filled report provides the history we need to understand how enormous tax cuts over the last 50 years have favored the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working people and the middle class.   What"s clear in this report is the shift in the tax burden has fueled a rising inequality and concentration of wealth that weakens our democracy.   That shift is clear just looking at the tax rates paid by the wealthiest Americans. From 1950 to 1963--even under that radical Republican President Dwight Eisenhower--the federal tax rate on personal income over $400,000 never dropped below 91 percent. Between 1936 and 1980 it never dropped below 70 percent. But today, the top personal income tax rate after the 2001 Bush tax cut is just 35 percent. The tax rate on capital gains--which most benefits those in the highest income brackets--dropped to 15 percent in 2003, down from as high as 39.9 percent in 1977.   With all the fury about the debt and deficits, it"s worth reminding ourselves that if we close a few loopholes for the very rich, then presto, the current deficit would be significantly smaller. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy between 2001-2008 cost the US Treasury $700 billion, with all of these billions added directly to the national debt. Retaining these tax cuts will cost $826 billion over the next decade. Check out these stunning stats:   Between 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60 to 33.6 percent. The top 400 income-earners have seen the share of their income they pay in federal income tax alone plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007.   In 2007, if the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as they paid in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $281.2 billion. If the top 400 had paid the same rate as it did in 1955 it would have meant an additional $47.7 billion in revenue. (The incomes of the top 400 have multiplied by 27 times--adjusted for inflation--since 1955, yet back then they paid over three times more of their incomes in federal income tax.)   Meanwhile, the middle class has seen their taxes increase. The report lays out that, "Despite all the "tax cut" political rhetoric and action of recent years, average Americans have seen no tax savings at the federal level."   Adding insult to injury, "Our children and grandchildren... will be asked to pay back, with interest, the trillions our federal government has been borrowing to offset our loss of tax revenue from wealthy taxpayers."   The result of this imbalanced, unjust, and out-of-whack tax shift? A public investment deficit--seen in our crumbling infrastructure, lack of investment in a robust green economy, and rising tuition costs at public universities, to name just a few areas--and a concentration of wealth and power that bought a deregulated casino economy and subsequent economic collapse that the rest of us are paying for.   Yet despite this historic shift in the tax burden, the debate we are having on tax reform is inadequate to say the least.   What"s really shocking is we can"t even manage Tax Reform 101--to tax the hedge fund managers like we do normal working people. They pay a stunning 15 percent on their billions--a lower rate than teachers, cops, even their own assistants!   And a 2008 GAO report found that two-thirds of US corporations paid zero federal income taxes from 1998-2005. Twenty-five percent of the largest US corporations had $1.1 trillion in gross sales in 2005 but paid no federal income taxes. Where is the debate on corporate tax rates and loopholes? If corporations are now people, can"t they start paying taxes like people too? Visit the related web page
	View more stories