CNSnews reported this week that a study by the Tax Foundation found a net loss of 1.3 million New Yorkers who left the state over the 10 year period from 2000-2010.
3.4 million total moved out of state, but another 2.1 moved in, so the change was -1.3 million — which totaled a loss of $45.6 billion in income.
Although many factors determine one’s decision to move to or from a locality, taxes are typically part of the process. As such, the Tax Foundation noted many high tax facts that are unique to New York:
According to the group, New York ranked second among the states for the highest state and local tax burden in 2009. The Empire State was ranked highest for tax burden every year from 1977 until 2006, except in 1984 when it was ranked second.
New York State has a progressive personal income tax rate ranging from 6.45 percent to 8.82 percent for those earning over $2 million. Sales varies by county, and is between seven and eight percent. In Manhattan, the sales tax is 8.875 percent.
According to the Retirement Living Center, which examines tax burdens by state for those nearing retirement, New York also levies a gasoline tax at 49.0 cents per gallon and a cigarette tax of $4.35 per pack, along with an additional $1.50 per pack in New York City.
New York is also one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia that collects an estate tax, with a $1 million exemption and a progressive rate from 0.8 percent to 16 percent.
In 2007, New York State collected $1.1 billion from its estate and gift taxes, the highest of any of the states, according to the Tax Foundation.
I have mentioned these points before. Back in 2009, Rush Limbaugh fled the state due to the crushing taxes. And an Op-Ed in the NY Post last year discussed the implications of a shrinking population — loss of revenue, House of Representative seats, and policy power.
High taxes have devastating consequences. Thomas Sowell once quipped, “Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders”.
USA Today had a spot-on analysis of how misleading federal accounting practices are. In a previous article elucidating how Social Security is not Pay-As-You-Go, I pointed out the fallacy of this “system”, as it is a method of hiding future realities. USA Today takes this concept further and examines the entirety of the government’s deficit reporting:
The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits. Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules.
Exactly. Any business profession which failed to take into account future liabilities would face scrutiny from the SEC.
The main argument for exempting future retirement promises into the deficit calculation is that the government has the flexibility to change the amount it is obligated to pay out by tweaking the formula — such as raising taxes or cutting benefits — while businesses do not typically have that luxury. Such a ridiculous premise. The deficit amounts are always in flux and this excuse only serves to hide the reality of extra trillion dollar obligations that no one wants to fix, own up to, or reduce. A few days ago, I did some number crunching on the “official” federal deficit figures. I can’t fathom the results I’d get incorporating the data USA Today compiled.
From the USA Today findings:
•Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. That’s $9.5 trillion more than was needed in 2004.
•Deficits from 2004 to 2011 would be six times the official total of $5.6 trillion reported.
•Federal debt and retiree commitments equal $561,254 per household. By contrast, an average household owes a combined $116,057 for mortgages, car loans and other debts.
With folks like Dick Durbin perpetuating the lie, it’s no wonder how ignorant much of the population is with regard to proper accounting practices and fiduciary responsibility.
The folks over at CNS news had a little article about our current federal debt. They pointed out that federal debt is currently $15.709 trillion.
They went on to calculate that since March 4, 2011, the federal debt has increased $1,526,126,486,886.61.
The first spending deal the White House and leaders of both parties in Congress made last year was on March 2. On that day, the president signed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past March 4, when the previous continuing resolution, passed by a lame-duck Congress in late 2010, expired.
The March 4 CR kept the government funded for two weeks and was approved by a bipartisan 335-91 vote in the House and a bipartisan 91-9 vote in the Senate.
Since that March 4, 2011 bipartisan continuing resolution, the federal government has been funded by a series of bipartisan deals cut between the White House and congressional leaders.
They further tabulated the debt per household since the first Continuing Resolution:
Given that the Census Bureau estimates there are about 117,538,000 households in the United States, the per household increase in the federal debt since Congress enacted its March 4, 2011 bipartisan spending deal has been approximately $12,984.
This got me thinking about some more facts and figures:
If the total debt it 15,709,000,000,000.00, and there are 117,538,000 households in the United States, each household is responsible for $133,650.39.
Given that the US Population Clock records that there are 313,582,673 persons in the United States as of today, each person is responsible for $50,095.24
Given that it is estimated that 46% of households either paid no federal income tax in 2011 or will receive more from the IRS than they pay in, that means 63,470,520 households (54%) did. If you divide the entire debt per taxpaying household, each is responsible for $247,500.72 of the total debt, or an increase of $24,044.65 since last March. (14 months ago)
“Following the contentious debt ceiling last August, President Obama promised that he would take action to address the country’s fiscal crisis. He has failed to do that. In fact, his new budget increases spending and projects that Washington will be hitting the debt ceiling again in mid-October – burning through a $2.1 trillion debt limit increase in just over 14 months. This is an unfortunate but clear signal to the American people that Washington is spending too much, borrowing too much, and putting our nation’s fiscal stability at risk.
So some final calculations here.
By around Election Day, the total debt of the United States will be $16,394,000,000,000.00 ($16.394 trillion).
Based on today’s (May 20th) population numbers,
That’s $55,279.67 per person
That’s $139,478.29 per household
That’s $258,293.14 per taxpaying household
BIPARTISAN AND BICAMERAL. That says it all. Obama is truly a “partisan” president.
Below is the text of the press release from the House Budget Committee regarding the newest unanimous vote to reject President Obama’s fiscal plan: House Budget Committee Press <hbcpress@mail.house.gov>
Date: Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Paul Ryan on Bipartisan, Bicameral Rejection of President’s Budget: 0-513
Chairman Ryan on the Clarifying Choice Offered by U.S. Senate’s Budget Failures
President Obama and his party’s leaders fail to advance solutions, prove unfit to govern
WASHINGTON – On the 1,113th day since Senate Democrats last passed a budget, the U.S. Senate considered a series of budget resolutions, none authored or supported by a single Senate Democrat. The national debt has eclipsed the size of the entire U.S. economy, yet the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to passa budget for over three years. They chose again this year not to even propose a budget. While a series of Republican budget proposals received support today, the President’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget was rejected 0-99 – with every single Democrat and every single Republican voting against the President’s fiscal plan.In response to today’s clarifying exercise on the Senate floor today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan issued the following statement:“The budget votes today in the Democrat-controlled Senate reveal a clear choice of two futures: painful austerity from politicians who refuse to lead and a path to prosperity from solutions-oriented reformers. Not only does this mark the third year Senate Democrats have failed to put forward a budget, it also marks the second year in which they joined Republicans in unanimously rejecting the President’s budget. In the past two years – in the House and the Senate, the President’s budgets have received zero votes in favor and 610 votes against. It is no surprise that Democrats up for reelection want nothing to do with the President’s massive increases in spending, taxing and borrowing. The fact that no Senate Democrat has voted in favor of a single budget resolution on the Senate floor in over three years is among the most embarrassing spectacles in Washington. “I thank Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions for his leadership on fiscal issues, and I applaud the efforts of Senators Toomey, Lee and Paul for advancing alternative budget proposals. Senate Republicans continue to advance and affirm bold solutions to the nation’s most urgent fiscal and economic challenges. Once again, Republicans are leading while the Democrats who run their party refuse to put forward solutions. Instead, they insist on recklessly spending billions of dollars we don’t have with no restraints and no accountability. The President and his party’s leaders refuse to tackle our generation’s defining challenge, choosing instead to repeat the mistakes of Europe with empty rhetoric, broken promises, and the growth-stifling folly of chasing ever-higher government spending with ever-higher tax increases. To find out where this path leads, just ask the Greeks.
“The Democrats who run their party are letting the country down. This is especially disappointing because there are some Democrats and Independent voices who have expressed a willingness to tackle our nation’s challenges in a bipartisan way with principled solutions. But Washington needs new leadership in the White House and the U.S. Senate in order to deliver these solutions to the American families who deserve them, and to ensure that we leave our children with a stronger nation than the one our parents left us.”
Of note: The Path to Prosperity received 41 more votes than the President’s budget in the U.S. Senate today and 228 more votes than the President’s budget in the U.S House of Representatives earlier this year.
“If Congress adopts this budget, then along with the cuts that we’ve already made, we’ll be able to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion by the year 2022 — $4 trillion… But the main idea in the budget is this: At a time when our economy is growing and creating jobs at a faster clip, we’ve got to do everything in our power to keep this recovery on track.” – President Barack Obama, Feb. 13, 2012
“This Budget lays out the President’s vision to… build an economy that will grow robustly and create good jobs for years to come [and] pursue deficit reduction that is balanced and will put the country on a sustainable fiscal path.” – OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zients, Feb. 14, 2012
“The president tomorrow will be presenting a budget that does $4 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years. It does it in a way that builds an economy in America that can last… and calling for shared American values where everybody, you know, has a fair shot, does their fair share and plays by the same rules.” – White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Feb. 12, 2012
This one is really really going to work this time. I promise!
Last Saturday, Obama unveiled his new stimulus plan — a list of more things for the government to do in order to create new jobs. That means more government spending.
The president’s list includes an expanded program to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, a proposal to give small businesses tax breaks for hiring more workers, a program that would help veterans find jobs, and an extension of tax credits for clean-energy companies.
The Washington Times reports that the cost for this new stimulus plan could be nearly $35 billion. Additionally, much of the parts of this “plan” are recycled ideas from the proposed Jobs Package that hasn’t gained much traction in Congress.
Obama’s new stimulus plan of old ideas seems more like election rhetoric aimed to appeal to voting blocs — veterans, struggling homeowners, green energy, and small businesses. Let’s hope they see through his tired, unpopular ideas.
Friday we hear the news that the new unemployment rate is 8.1%. Since Obama’s goal post is to get the number at least under 8% in time for election day, this number — on the surface — sounds relatively good, right?
Payrolls only added 115,000 new jobs, the lowest number in six months. According to Bloomberg, it missed the target estimate of 160,000.
The unemployment rate was forecast to hold at 8.2 percent, according to the survey median. It has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, the longest such stretch since monthly records began in 1948.
The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, fell to 63.6 percent, the lowest since December 1981, from 63.8 percent.
Bloomberg also posted the underemployment rate, which consists both of part-time workers who want full time work and those who have stopped working. That number is 14.5%.
Overall, not a good picture for jobs and economy right now. Breitbart gave a quick synopsis on numbers and their theory as to why the Obama administration continues to focus on less critical matters, such as dogs and contraception. They are trying to deflect emotions away from the depressing job data which undermines Obama’s continued assertion that we are in a recovery and things are better.
