The analysis concludes Biden’s plan would raise $2.8 trillion over the next decade from higher taxes on businesses, corporations and the wealthiest households. Over that time, AEI projects the higher taxes would reduce economic growth by a relatively modest 0.16 percent.

The plan would “make the tax code more progressive,” AEI’s Kyle Pomerlau and Grant Seiter write. And after slightly crimping growth in its first decade, it would “reduce debt-to-GDP in the second decade, leading to slightly higher GDP. However, in the long term, his plan would not raise enough to stabilize debt-to-GDP and would lead to a 0.18 percent smaller economy.”

The macroeconomic drag the AEI model anticipates roughly aligns with other analyses from the Tax Foundation and the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Pomerlau notes. In other words, rolling back most of the Trump tax cuts wouldn’t bring about the economic Armageddon the Trump campaign has depicted.

Neither would it jack up taxes on every American. 

Vice President Pence made that claim during his debate with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.),  Biden’s running mate, last week. The AEI analysis finds the top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a 14.2 percent hit to their after-tax income next year. The rest of the top 5 percent would face a small uptick in their burden. But everyone else would receive an after-tax income bump. The largest such increase, of 11.3 percent, would go to the bottom 10 percent, thanks to a temporary expansion of the child tax credit, according to AEI.

The analysis finds that starting in 2030, the Biden plan would impose “modest” tax hikes on the bottom 95 percent of earners, which it attributes to higher taxes on businesses. That would appear to violate Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000

State Farm Ranks Highest in Individual Life Insurance; Nationwide, New York Life Tie for Highest in Annuity

Even as deaths associated with COVID-19 eclipse 200,000 in the United States, consumers don’t seem motivated to buy life insurance and life insurance customers are largely apathetic toward their insurer despite some standout performances. According to the J.D. Power 2020 U.S. Life Insurance Study,SM released today, a combination of infrequent client communications and a pervasive perception of high cost and transaction complexity have suppressed consumer interest and customer satisfaction with life insurance providers.

This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201013005142/en/

J.D. Power 2020 U.S. Life Insurance Study (Graphic: Business Wire)

“The life insurance industry has a significant perception problem because, in the throes of a pandemic, consumers naturally should be more engaged with their insurer—but they aren’t,” said Robert M. Lajdziak, senior consultant of insurance intelligence at J.D. Power. “We’ve been observing a trend for several years that customer satisfaction with life insurance companies starts declining the moment a policy is purchased and continues to decline throughout the relationship due to a lack of policyholder contact from most insurers. The fact that insurers and agents have not been able to reverse this trend during a historic global pandemic speaks to the depth of the challenge the industry faces. Life insurance providers need to dramatically ratchet up their client communications efforts and demonstrate their value to their end customers—not just to advisors and sales representatives.”

Following are some key findings of the 2020 study:

  • Life insurance customer satisfaction flat year over year: The overall customer satisfaction score for life insurance providers is 763 (on a 1,000-point scale), up just two points from 2019. Annuity customer satisfaction increases to 778, also just two points higher than in 2019.

  • Customer

CHICAGO (Reuters) – U.S. aviation contractors laid off thousands of workers due to delays in payroll aid from the U.S. Treasury that was meant to protect jobs, an investigation by a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee found.

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), companies in the aviation sector were granted funds to cover six months of their payroll as the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a precipitous decline in air travel.

The legislation banned any job cuts through September, and requires the U.S. Department of the Treasury to begin distributing funds to eligible companies within 10 days of the law’s approval on March 27.

But an investigation by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis found that top contractors did not receive the money until months later, resulting in more than 16,500 layoffs and furloughs at 15 companies, more than 15% of the aviation contractor workforce.

“Had Treasury met the deadline set by Congress, many of these jobs would have been preserved,” the report said.

Treasury did not immediately comment.

Among the top seven contractors, Swissport waited 99 days before its payroll support agreement with Treasury was finalized, Gate Gourmet 78 days and Flying Food Fare 74 days, leading to nearly 12,000 layoffs and furloughs at those three companies alone.

The companies still received the full amount of federal aid based on their pre-pandemic workforce, even though they had laid off many of those workers, the report said.

Swissport, Gate Gourmet and Flying Food Fare did not immediately comment.

Aviation contractors were awarded $3 billion under the first CARES Act and could see those funds extended for another six months if Congress passes a second stimulus package.

The report recommends another round of aid but said layoffs should be prohibited until a company uses all of

Morgan Stanley’s


MS 0.60%

deal to acquire

Eaton Vance


EV 48.14%

isn’t a steal. It still might prove to be a very good business decision.

The timing of the transaction is interesting: Morgan Stanley said it has been looking at this deal for several years, and Eaton Vance wasn’t trading at a huge discount to where it has been over that period of time—only 5% below its five-year average share price as of Wednesday.

But among things that have changed recently are some in Washington. For a long time running, an investor concern around Morgan Stanley was that the Federal Reserve’s shift to a new way of determining capital requirements would increase the bank’s required minimum. Instead, Morgan Stanley did relatively well in this year’s stress test, and its new requirements actually came in lower than many analysts had anticipated based on prior exams.

Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley and peers have halted share buybacks, initially by big banks’ own choice but now by Fed rules. The bank also has been generating capital through strong earnings across capital markets and investment management, bolstered by the Fed’s market interventions. The upshot is that the bank effectively has something like $10 billion in capital resources surplus to requirements.

James Gorman, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, was quick to point out on a call with analysts that the bank’s decision to do the deal was based on a decade-plus strategic view, not just on recent capital developments. Still, even a key long-term rationale—bringing together Eaton Vance’s asset-management products and Morgan Stanley’s wealth-management distribution—is best served by acting now. Some of Morgan Stanley’s major wealth competitors are also banks, such as

Bank of America


BAC 1.45%

or

Goldman Sachs Group,


GS 2.15%

with reasons to bolster their investment-management business at a tough time for more

Oct. 6 (UPI) — The price of the diabetes drug insulin is more than eight times higher in the United States than in 32 other high-income nations combined, according to a RAND Corp. analysis released Tuesday.

The average price per unit across all types of insulin in the United States is $98.70, which is just over six times the drug’s average price in Canada — about $15.70 — and just under six times the average price in Britain and Japan — about $16.70 — the researchers said.

And the average U.S. price is nearly 28 times as high as that of Turkey, which is about $3.60, they said.

“This analysis provides the best available evidence about how much more expensive insulin is in the U.S. than in other nations around the world,” RAND senior policy researcher Andrew Mulcahy said in a statement.

“Prices in the U.S. are always much higher than other nations, even if you assume steep discounts to manufacturer prices in the United States,” he said.

Insulin is used to control blood sugar levels in people with insulin-dependent diabetes. The drug is sold in many different forms, with different chemical properties and different duration of effects.

List prices in the United States have increased dramatically over the past decade, according to Mulcahy and his colleagues.

For example, the average U.S. wholesale-acquisition price for rapid-acting, long-acting, and short-acting insulin increased by 15% to 17% per year from 2012 to 2016, based on one estimate.

The RAND study used manufacturer prices for the analysis. Researchers compiled estimates of international insulin prices by examining industry data on insulin sales and volume for 2018, comparing the United States to 32 nations that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Although the ratio of U.S. prices to other-country prices varied depending