In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks -- and pay for their own lunch. (Photo by mark peterson/Corbis via Getty Images)
Dec 21, 2020
While the world is reeling from the pandemic, corporate lobbyists have been focused on making taxpayers subsidize lavish lunches for wealthy executives.
And their work has paid off in the new Covid relief deal. Buried in the details of this modest aid plan is a provision to give executives unlimited tax deductions for their business meals for two years.
That's how it worked back in the 1970s, when Presidential candidate George McGovern had this to say about it: "There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system," he said, "when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."
"There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."-George Mcgovern
President Ronald Reagan, of all people, actually agreed with McGovern. His 1986 tax-code overhaul, best remembered today for lowering overall rates, reduced the deductibility of business meals from 100 to 80 percent. In 1993, the Clinton administration pushed that deductibility rate down to 50 percent, where it has stayed ever since.
Now corporate lobbyists have managed to restore that 1970s-era perk - claiming, of course, that bigger tax write-offs for business meals would help struggling restaurants and the people they employ.
That's the same argument they used in their opposition to the Clinton-era reform. It was flawed then and it's even more preposterous now.
Back in 1993, the National Restaurant Association predicted that if businesses were able to write off only half the cost of their business meals (instead of 80 percent), restaurant industry sales would plummet by $3.8 billion and 165,000 jobs would be lost in just the first year.
The opposite occurred. In the year after the reform went into effect on January 1, 1994, sales at full-service restaurants grew by 3.5 percent, outstripping overall U.S. economic growth, according to Census and Labor Department data. And instead of the NRA's predicted loss of 165,000 jobs, full-service restaurant payrolls grew by 132,300. That was a 4-percent increase, compared to only 3.5 percent growth in national employment.
Today, when the real problem is a public health crisis that's keeping people at home, it's even more laughable that lowering taxes on business meals will do anything to help struggling restaurant owners and employees.
In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks -- and pay for their own lunch.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Sarah Anderson
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.
While the world is reeling from the pandemic, corporate lobbyists have been focused on making taxpayers subsidize lavish lunches for wealthy executives.
And their work has paid off in the new Covid relief deal. Buried in the details of this modest aid plan is a provision to give executives unlimited tax deductions for their business meals for two years.
That's how it worked back in the 1970s, when Presidential candidate George McGovern had this to say about it: "There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system," he said, "when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."
"There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."-George Mcgovern
President Ronald Reagan, of all people, actually agreed with McGovern. His 1986 tax-code overhaul, best remembered today for lowering overall rates, reduced the deductibility of business meals from 100 to 80 percent. In 1993, the Clinton administration pushed that deductibility rate down to 50 percent, where it has stayed ever since.
Now corporate lobbyists have managed to restore that 1970s-era perk - claiming, of course, that bigger tax write-offs for business meals would help struggling restaurants and the people they employ.
That's the same argument they used in their opposition to the Clinton-era reform. It was flawed then and it's even more preposterous now.
Back in 1993, the National Restaurant Association predicted that if businesses were able to write off only half the cost of their business meals (instead of 80 percent), restaurant industry sales would plummet by $3.8 billion and 165,000 jobs would be lost in just the first year.
The opposite occurred. In the year after the reform went into effect on January 1, 1994, sales at full-service restaurants grew by 3.5 percent, outstripping overall U.S. economic growth, according to Census and Labor Department data. And instead of the NRA's predicted loss of 165,000 jobs, full-service restaurant payrolls grew by 132,300. That was a 4-percent increase, compared to only 3.5 percent growth in national employment.
Today, when the real problem is a public health crisis that's keeping people at home, it's even more laughable that lowering taxes on business meals will do anything to help struggling restaurant owners and employees.
In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks -- and pay for their own lunch.
Sarah Anderson
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, and is a co-editor of Inequality.org.
While the world is reeling from the pandemic, corporate lobbyists have been focused on making taxpayers subsidize lavish lunches for wealthy executives.
And their work has paid off in the new Covid relief deal. Buried in the details of this modest aid plan is a provision to give executives unlimited tax deductions for their business meals for two years.
That's how it worked back in the 1970s, when Presidential candidate George McGovern had this to say about it: "There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system," he said, "when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."
"There's something fundamentally wrong with the tax system when it allows a corporate executive to deduct his $20 martini lunch while a workingman cannot deduct the price of his bologna sandwich."-George Mcgovern
President Ronald Reagan, of all people, actually agreed with McGovern. His 1986 tax-code overhaul, best remembered today for lowering overall rates, reduced the deductibility of business meals from 100 to 80 percent. In 1993, the Clinton administration pushed that deductibility rate down to 50 percent, where it has stayed ever since.
Now corporate lobbyists have managed to restore that 1970s-era perk - claiming, of course, that bigger tax write-offs for business meals would help struggling restaurants and the people they employ.
That's the same argument they used in their opposition to the Clinton-era reform. It was flawed then and it's even more preposterous now.
Back in 1993, the National Restaurant Association predicted that if businesses were able to write off only half the cost of their business meals (instead of 80 percent), restaurant industry sales would plummet by $3.8 billion and 165,000 jobs would be lost in just the first year.
The opposite occurred. In the year after the reform went into effect on January 1, 1994, sales at full-service restaurants grew by 3.5 percent, outstripping overall U.S. economic growth, according to Census and Labor Department data. And instead of the NRA's predicted loss of 165,000 jobs, full-service restaurant payrolls grew by 132,300. That was a 4-percent increase, compared to only 3.5 percent growth in national employment.
Today, when the real problem is a public health crisis that's keeping people at home, it's even more laughable that lowering taxes on business meals will do anything to help struggling restaurant owners and employees.
In this time of crisis, any support for corporations should encourage executives to treat their workers well, trim their own fat paychecks -- and pay for their own lunch.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.