As corporate profits remain at all-time highs, a new report shows that more than half of rising consumer prices in 2023 were caused by corporate greed, or "greedflation."
Elizabeth Pancotti - strategic advisor with the DC-based think tank Groundwork Collaborative - said before the pandemic, corporate profits drove just 11% of price growth.
But even after supply chain snarls were resolved, companies chose not to pass savings along to customers.
"Keeping sticker prices much higher than they probably need to be," said Pancotti. "And as a result, they have really padded their bottom lines on the backs of American consumers, to the tune of about 53% of inflation being driven by corporate profits for the most recent quarters."
The report echoes analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City which identified price gouging as the driving factor for inflation during the height of the pandemic.
Some economists have argued these price hikes were due to companies bracing for future production costs, while others note corporate CEOs have a legal obligation to maximize profits for shareholders.
Pancotti said while production costs did rise by 1% in 2023, consumer prices still rose by 3.4%.
She added that for the past three years, CEOs have bragged on shareholder earnings calls about high profits linked to raising prices.
"Even though their wage costs or their input prices have gone up, they are able to completely offset those by charging consumers more," said Pancotti. "So you don't have to listen to us, they've said it themselves."
An economist at a leading global investment bank has warned that greedflation could lead to widespread social unrest.
Pancotti noted that the Trump administration's 2017 tax cuts gave corporations a tax break for profiteering, and those incentives are set to expire in 2025.
Economists at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have also called for temporary price controls to prevent spiraling inflation in future crises.
get more stories like this via email
By Frank Jossi for Energy News Network.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Minnesota News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
One installation at a time, a solar nonprofit that matches socially conscious investors' cash with lower-income homeowners is spreading the benefits of solar in North Minneapolis.
Solstar was formed three years ago by solar entrepreneur Ralph Jacobson following his retirement from IPS Solar, the pioneering Twin Cities' solar company he founded three decades ago earlier.
In his entire career, "I hardly ever had Black customers or Black subcontractors," Jacobson recalled.
Solstar is a collective effort for clean energy leaders in North Minneapolis to address those racial disparities.
Jacobson, 71, works his network to persuade wealthy individuals to invest in residential solar installations. Kristel Porter, a well-known community activist, recruits low- or moderate-income homeowners who are interested in having solar on their homes. J.T. Thomas of the Black-owned Go Solar Construction trains and supervises students who help install the projects.
Solstar takes care of applications for all of the available incentives. Homeowners pay nothing and immediately benefit from a lower monthly electricity bill.
"It's a no-brainer," said Jacques Beech, who signed up with Solstar and now has solar panels on the roof of the 2,700-square-foot ranch home he shares with his wife and two kids.
His electricity bill so far has dropped by around $100 a month.
'It has been harder than expected'
The model is working, though slower than Solstar's founders would have hoped. The nonprofit initially wanted to finish 24 projects in its first two years. Instead, it's completed ten and expects to hit the two dozen mark later this year.
"We found it has been harder than expected and needed a different skill set," Jacobson said.
Among the challenges were managing investors, timing projects around incentives, convincing skeptical homeowners the offer wasn't too good to be true, and keeping trainees employed in the still sporadic industry.
Solstar's financing is complex. The nonprofit pays for installations by attracting investors and offering them a modest rate of return. Three major equity investors take advantage of the tax credits and depreciation on the projects. Solstar's microlenders do not get tax credits but instead receive 3.5% on investments ranging from $5,000 to $50,000.
Solstar investors reduce their taxes by taking advantage of the 30% tax credit and a six-year depreciation schedule on solar projects. After exhausting tax incentives, Solstar plans to sell the solar systems to their commercial and residential customers at a significantly reduced price. Clients hosting Solstar panels on their roofs receive discounts on their electricity by as much as 20% and, in some cases, more.
Jacobson reduces his costs by taking advantage of other programs. Every project is sized up to 120% of the client's electricity use, the highest amount allowed under Xcel Energy's Solar Rewards incentive program. Solar Rewards pays more per kilowatt hour for participating low-income households. A production incentive from the city of Minneapolis's Green Zone program adds another layer of support.
None of this is easily absorbed by investors or clients. Jacobson quickly discovered interested investors, but many would require multiple conversations and several weeks of consideration before betting on his new program.
Eventually, crowdsourcing cash paid off. "I certainly developed a bit of a following, a little community of maybe 70 to 75 people, who have put money into these projects," he said.
One of those is Eric Pasi, a former partner at IPS Solar who now runs the community solar company Enterprise Energy. He saw an opportunity to move solar beyond helping reduce energy bills of middle- and upper-class clients to a BIPOC mixed-income neighborhood.
"We love projects like this because for a modest investment the impact for these projects is so great," said Pasi, who is also a board member of Fresh Energy, which publishes the Energy News Network.
Job-training challenges
After Solstar began knocking on doors of North Minneapolis residents in early 2021, Jacobson discovered the annual budget for Xcel's Solar Rewards program had already run out of money for the year. Porter kept marketing Solstar and speaking to potential clients to prepare installations for 2022 and 2023.
The Solar Rewards issue was just the start of problems. "I didn't realize we were going to run into as many potholes as we ended up running into," Porter said.
Some homeowners sat on the fence, not making a final decision for months. At least four who signed up in 2023 delayed solar projections because they needed new roofs after an August hail storm.
Trying to pay professional contractors and their trainees became expensive and "tricky and financially just too much," Porter said.
Solstar eventually broadened the contractor pool beyond Go Solar to finish projects within the Solar Rewards deadlines. If a project does not meet deadlines, Solstar would have to reapply for Solar Rewards the following year "and go through the whole process again," Porter said.
Other projects were slowed when Xcel laid off several employees who were familiar with Solstar and its model.
Solstar's job training pipeline has also run into hurdles. Thomas onboards students from training programs offered by the city of Minneapolis and partnering institutions such as the Regional Apprenticeship Training Center. Four students who received classroom training then worked with Thomas on Solstar projects.
Some students struggle with getting transportation to installation jobs, he said. Training is often scheduled so far in advance that job opportunities may not be immediately available when students finish their classes.
Many students can't spend a month or two waiting for a job, Thomas said, and when a job emerges, they may not be available because they are already working.
"It's taken a while to ramp up, but now it seems like the jobs are trickling in and we're getting the processes down," he said. "Hopefully, as we go on to it next year, it will be a little more seamless."
Replicating the model
Still, according to attorney Jeremy Kalin, the program's approach and hard-won success means that other nonprofits could use the same approach. His firm, Avisen, has worked with similar programs in Maryland and others are starting in Arizona, Georgia and New Mexico.
The difference between Solstar and those initiatives is that Jacobson recruited wealthy investors who could take advantage of the tax credits and depreciation. Nonprofits in other states will use the Inflation Reduction Act's "direct pay" option rather than rely on investors. The act allows nonprofits and government agencies to receive tax credits as cashback from the IRS.
Nonprofits using direct pay did not have a way to "monetize the depreciation deduction," but "they have a simpler task because finding tax credit investors with the right kind of taxable income is hard," Kalin said.
Jacobson has not determined whether Solstar will continue the same structure or lean into direct pay. He said several early investors in Solstar and a separate initiative he helps lead in the Red Lake Indian community want to continue participating in Solstar.
Early customers like the program. Beech said he would have never made such a significant investment with such a long payback without the program. "It's not a cost-effective thing, unless you just have the money, which I don't," Beech said. "This is an affordable way to do it."
After completing the first iteration of Solstar, Jacobson wants to start another limited liability company and start recruiting 24 more homes and small businesses. "If White people can build wealth by owning solar, then I guess Black people should be able to build wealth by owning solar, too," he said.
Frank Jossi wrote this article for Energy News Network.
get more stories like this via email
President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have promised to pass a new tax bill, and a new report breaks down the expected winners and losers.
Joe Hughes, senior policy analyst with the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, says based on Trump's campaign proposals, the top one percent - those making more than $900,000 a year - will see their tax bill go down by more than $36,000, on average.
"The top 5% of households make more than $360,000 a year. They will likely see their taxes go down. For the other 95% of Americans, they will likely see their taxes go up," he said.
Hughes added that Americans earning between $55,000 and $94,000 a year would have to pay over $1,500 more in taxes. The combined increases would further shift the tax burden - to pay for bridges, schools, health care and highways from corporations and higher-income individuals to low- and middle-income families. Trump has claimed, without evidence, that increasing tariffs on foreign goods would cover revenues lost due to tax cuts.
Hughes says because companies pass the costs of tariffs along to consumers, Americans will also be hit with what is essentially a national sales tax. He added the incoming administration's proposals, if enacted, could increase the national debt by as much as $15 trillion over the next decade.
"The proposals to increase tariffs are not going to raise enough revenue to offset the tax cuts that he's proposed to give to high-income individuals and to corporations," Hughes continued.
Trump has called the election results a mandate for his policies. But Hughes noted a strong majority of Americans support a tax code that's fair, one that asks those who can afford it to contribute more. They don't think billionaires such as Elon Musk should pay less than working families.
"Most Americans, even a majority of Republicans, support higher income taxes on the wealthy and on corporations," he said. "So, there is some disconnect here between the candidate that they voted for and the policies that actually poll well with voters."
get more stories like this via email
Montana citizens and environmental advocates have sued the state for withholding documents that have, for decades, been considered public information.
The division that provides bill drafting and other support to the Montana Legislature has announced a new policy that requires a legislator's approval before releasing documents to the public.
That includes all the correspondence and communication that goes into drafting a bill, including lawmakers conferring with lobbyists and other legislators.
Upper Seven Law's Founder Rylee Sommers-Flanagan said Montana's Constitution protects residents' right to know about and participate in the legislative process.
"The right to know is meant to protect our ability to examine the documents of any public agency," said Sommers-Flanagan. "This includes all Executive Branch agencies. It includes all aspects of the Legislature. Anything that relates to their official business belongs to the people of Montana."
A Helena judge over the summer ruled that correspondence used to draft bills - so called "junque files" - are not public record, reversing a 25-year-old policy.
Sommers-Flanagan argued the move undermines transparency, which she said has been the backbone of Montana's lawmaking process, and calls into question interactions between lawmakers and lobbyists who often work together to create a bill.
"We could literally be deprived of opportunity to see bribery happening in writing," said Sommers-Flanagan. "And, of course, I doubt that our legislators are engaged in bribery - but what this does is, it protects them fully from any sort of disclosure around what they might be exchanging."
The rule was implemented when a district court ruled in favor of a state senator who argued that junque files related to a gerrymandering law should not be made public.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
