by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Last week, Nick Gillespie of Reason moderated a webinar on policing and protests with Jacob Sullivan and C.J. Ciaramella. Gillespie is a thoughtful libertarian whose discussions I generally enjoy. Thus, I was appalled to hear Gillespie –no less than five times during the hour-long segment–refer to the 2014 Ferguson incident with Michael Brown as the beginning of the focus on police abuse and brutality. That is completely fictional. It was very clearly established that the police did nothing wrong in that case, a determination subsequently confirmed by the DOJ report — under Eric Holder no less!
It’s bad enough that this particular lie continues to be propagated by the left and progressives and repeated again and again, but for Reason to do so? For Nick Gillespie to do so? This is shameful. There are certainly well known cases of very wrongful and egregious cases of police misconduct that inform society’s dealing with the problem. But the Michael Brown incident – with its now famous though absolutely false “hands up, don’t shoot” – is actually a potent example of a mantra of a movement built on a lie.
To present Michael Brown’s case in the same sentence as George Floyd or Breonna Taylor is both damaging and reckless and it undermines the credibility of any meaningful conversation on a very important topic.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, LAW, POLITICS
I’ve been thinking a lot about the riots lately from my apartment in Manhattan, watching the looters come down my streets without a cop in sight. At first, I understood the protests to be about George Floyd and wanting appropriate action for the officers who were responsible for his death. So far, that has been handled correctly as the powers in charge have said the right things, and the perpetrators have been charged with murder. But now the tone has shifted; the assertion is that systemic police bias exists. However, the proposed fix has now become an outright assault on law enforcement, culminating in some cases in the takeover of police stations and the call for defunding of police units. That is neither okay nor actually productive.
One of the biggest problems with the systemic bias narrative is the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases of racist police brutality have occurred in cities where liberal Democrats, supported by significant involvement of black officials, have been running the system for roughly 50 years. In other words, if systemic racism exists, it exists within the realm of Democrat policies and leadership. Thus the majority of those protesting are–at the same time–the very people responsible for such a racist system in the first place.
A recent article in the WSJ reviewed the very idea of systemic police bias and found that statistics don’t bear out such a charge. “Crime and suspect behavior” on the other hand, are the factors that drive most actions taken by law enforcement. For instance, in 2019, African-Americans accounted for just under 25% of those fatally killed by police, which was a statistic relatively unchanged for the prior 4 years. Likewise, the Washington Post police database shows that in 2019, 9 unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites were killed by law enforcement, a number which had decreased since 2015. Furthermore the National Academy of Sciences published an important report in 2019 on the very topic of “officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings” which concluded: “we did not find anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity.”
The problem is more police quality control than it is police bias. Very often, police unions use their power to represent a bad cop (as is their job), giving bad cops protection instead of accountability. In the case of George Floyd, the officer who knelt on his neck allegedly had a total of 18 misconduct reports in his file, and yet he was still allowed to hold a badge. But this isn’t a new thing. The Atlantic took pains back in 2014 to chronicle how police unions and arbitrators keep bad cops on the street. Yet they still exist largely unchecked today. Want true systemic reform? Tackle the issue of police unions.
In fact, there are other policy changes that can be done to ameliorate the situation. Starting with ending ludicrous public service union protections as mentioned above, we can also limit qualified immunity, make the offending police individual or department be responsible for lawsuit settlements, and end militarizing the police. Such items are the result of years and years of liberal and minority policies that have produced the broken system we see today. These areas of police reform will go a long way toward rebuilding public trust instead of removing law enforcement from the public altogether.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, QUICKLY NOTED
Veronique de Rugy (one of my all time favorite people) and Tad DeHaven of the of the Mercatus Center have written a wonderful article about why there should not be state bailouts (pandemically-induced or otherwise) It is a great read here:
A key thing to note is about Veronique’s observation of why New York’s perennial claim that it sends more money to Washington than it gets back. The situation occurs because 1) the federal tax code is very progressive (thanks to NY and the other liberal states that insist on it) and New Yorkers have high incomes, and 2) NY receives relatively less money in the form of federal contracts and federal employee wages: (my note: this is logically caused by the fact that New York has made itself such a terrible place to do business -including sky-high costs and ridiculously burdensome regulation and taxes- that it can’t compete for these projects. Furthermore, the fact that New York taxpayers send more to Washington than they get back has nothing to do with why the government can’t balance its budget. The government is not the taxpayer. The states send no money to Washington – their earners do.
The states often argue that if corporations can get bailed out, states should as well. But note, that before there is ever a consideration of a corporate bailout, the corporation has taken dramatic steps to stem the problem, chopping costs, revising operations, and demonstrating that with the bailout funds the entity will again be viable. There is also a promise to repay the amounts with a significant return to the government.
But what about the states? There has been virtually no movement to reduce their budgets – in fact, NY continues to show that it is not only refusing to lay off personnel whose jobs are no longer viable, but they intend to go ahead with scheduled increases even to employees who are not working. No company would dream of requesting a bailout in those circumstances. And without serious and immediate cutbacks, how would the states ever have the capability to repay any bailout funds?
Many states have failed their fiduciary responsibilities to their citizens. If these lawmakers requesting bailouts are so concerned about their states, they should aim to reduce the size and scope of their governments, and the wildly out-of-control spending that created revenue shortfalls prior to the pandemic, instead of expecting others to subsidize their irresponsibility.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, TAXES
For years, I’ve been pounding the table about how public sector wages and compensations have steadily outpaced those found in the private sector. This is no more readily apparent than in New York where runaway budgets and deficits continuously fleece the taxpayer.
The private sector has several factors in place that help control runaway costs, chief among them being competition. The profit motive in the private sector keeps compensation at levels where economic factors limit them to their true market value, reflecting economically rational and fair compensation levels. On the other hand, there are no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector where politics and cronyism, rather than economics, create a fairy-tale negotiation for wages and benefits.
Here’s a tale of two states: New York and Florida. In New York, it is clear that public service unions are a significant reason why the cost of living is higher. In 2010, Florida’s population was 18.8 million while New York’s was 19.3 million. In the past ten years, New York experienced population stagnation (19.4m) while in Florida, the population grew to 21.8 million and continues to be one of the fastest growing states in the country. Yet crucially, over the same period, New York’s budget increased to $177 billion while Florida’s was a mere $93 billion, up from 70.4 billion in 2010. One could argue that New York does more for its people than Florida does, but the reality is that they just spend more money. Bloated public service payrolls and off-the-charts cost burdens of regulation are the main culprits. And that’s the problem.
I propose that the people of New York withdraw its authorization to its elected officials to enter into any contracts with public service unions that provide compensation, benefits, and terms in excess of those being paid for similar work and skills in the private sector. Furthermore, there should be a requirement that restricts any federal government employee from receiving a raise if it puts his compensation in excess of the benefits and wages paid for the same work in the private sector.
By “competing” per se with the private sector for compensation, the government can do its part to help keep its budget and deficits from getting any more out of control.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS, TAXES
New York’s state budget director, Robert F. Mujica, Jr., wrote an anemic, laughable Letter to the Editor (printed in the Wall Street Journal) trying to defend New York’s fiscal record in an effort to get a federal bailout. Those of us who live in New York couldn’t help but notice it was full of half-truths. For instance, Mr. Mujica boasted lowering income-tax rates, but neglected to include the fact that Florida doesn’t even have an income tax yet still manages to operate on a budget of $93 million vs NY’s $177 million — in a state with 2 million more people!
Furthermore, he talks about a 20% increase of private-sector jobs, but leaves out the fact that “private job growth in Florida has been about 60% higher than in New York from Jan 2010 to Jan 2020.”
Likewise, he claims that New Yorkers send $29 billion more in taxes to the federal government than it gets back, but fails to mention that the reason for this is New York’s tax code punishes high income earners by adding extra taxes, so much that some earners pay nearly 50% of their earnings in taxes! Nor does he mention that many wealthy New Yorkers have wised up to being fleeced over the last decade, making New York one of the top ten out-migration states in order for earners to try to keep their own income — some going to Florida, no less. This loss undoubtedly contributes to the $6 billion budget shortfall that existed before Coronavirus even hit, something that was also conveniently left out of his defense.
Finally, Mr. Mujica tries to suggest that the $29 billion New Yorkers send to the federal government somehow subsidizes Florida’s budget because Florida receives $30 billion more from the federal government than Floridians send. But he leaves out the fact that New York’s budget contains 35.9% of federal money compared to Florida’s 32.8%. With a budget of $177 billion, that’s $63 billion of spending from federal dollars compared to $30 billion in Florida. Who is more fiscally irresponsible?
If states like New York are not willing to take any of the economic risk going forward, they should not get any money. They have willfully chosen to engage in a prolonged economic lockdown in hopes that someone else pays for it. Florida was one of the last states to shut down and has begun opening up once again, understanding the need for economic recovery. If New York wants to continue to take the economic risk of staying closed while other localities choose to reopen, they should be the ones to pay for it.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY
The New York Times continued its ludicrous partisan writing in its coverage of the Flynn affair, calling his position a “reckless gamble.” At the same time, note that the reason why Flynn was recently exonerated is not even mentioned! Of course, it was clear that there was no basis to start the questioning in the first place, which as a matter of law makes the “lie” irrelevant. Also, since at the time the prosecuting parties had all testified that there was no Flynn or Trump wrongdoing about Russia (the underlying crime being investigated), the “lie” could not possibly have been “material” – a factor necessary for the “lie” to have been a crime.
This was an intentional attempt to 1) create a lie, 2) threaten Flynn’s family to force him to admit to a crime, and 3), and have everyone from Schiff, Obama, etc. lie about it to the public to gain political advantage. For the NYT to completely omit any mention of the FBI’s ambush interview and its lack of protocol handling the Flynn case is journalistic malpractice.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
The Tax Cuts and Job Act made some positive changes to the tax code. The reduction in marginal rates, especially on the corporate side, is noteworthy. However, there were several changes on the individual side which were absolutely ludicrous. These are noted below:
Without any discussion, Congress eliminated the miscellaneous itemized deductions. As I have written about before, in actuality, this one is truly the only legitimate deduction and is absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the tax code. With the new change now removing the miscellaneous itemized deduction, this person now has to pay taxes on the full amount earned without being able to deduct expenses accumulated while earning the income they are taxed on.
Another deduction Congress removed summarily is the moving deduction. Similar to the miscellaneous itemized deduction, this is a real expense that is incurred when moving to get a new job (in order to earn the income that will be taxed.) Now with the elimination of the deduction, taxpayers are no longer allowed to write off this cost.
The casualty loss deduction was also eliminated. This enabled you to deduct a loss that was due to a sudden unexpected event — such as a fire, hurricane, or robbery. Now if your house burns down, you can no longer write it off. The exception to this change is if your loss is in a federally-declared disaster area. So if your house burns down due to faulty wiring, you get no deduction. But if it burns down in a large wildfire that was later declared a disaster, you can claim the deduction. This is very egregious because the effect on the individual — the loss of a house due to a fire — is absolutely the same. This deduction elimination is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the alimony deduction was thrown out. The alimony deduction is a mechanism that prevented an inequitable tax burden to be created when a married family unit is split into two. Now, one can no longer deduct alimony payments, a move that is mean-spirited and creates a targeted tax burden on people who suffered a family breakup.
Additionally, there were two business-related deductions that were unnecessarily changed. The first one now caps the limit on the amount of business losses one can deduct at $250K ($500K if married), whereas the prior tax law did not. Furthermore, carryover losses are now limited. It used to be that you could carryover losses from one year to the next; for instance, if you had a $1 million loss on year but a $1 million gain the next, you could use that gain to offset the prior year loss. With the tax law changes, you can now only offset up to 80%.
While eliminating these important and equitable donations, Congress left in place a number of purely political/social engineering deductions and credits. Congress left in a substantial part of the mortgage deduction, which is really nothing more than a government subsidy to the real estate industry. They left in energy credits, rehabilitation and low income housing credits, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It’s disappointing to see Congress talk about simplicity, efficiency, and equitability, while simultaneously removing good provisions from the tax code and leaving in parts that are merely political appeasements to various groups and industries. It would be wise for Congress to reinstate these various deductions as a means to truly maintain fairness within the IRC.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, POLITICS
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which has been beneficial on the corporate side of tax reform. On the individual side, Congress allowed politics to get in the way of real reform, and that is inexcusable. The most egregious example of this was the elimination the miscellaneous itemized deduction.
The miscellaneous itemized deduction was truly the only legitimate deduction in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Its inclusion was absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the tax code. This deduction allowed taxpayers the ability to write off expenses that were incurred as part of the process to earn the income they are taxed on! For instance, under prior tax law, a person who earned $100K on an investment but had to pay $30K in legal fees, investment management fees, accounting fees, or other expenses to get it, would pay taxes on only the $70K net that was actually made during the process. With the new change now removing the miscellaneous itemized deduction, this person will have to pay taxes on the full $100K!
Let’s take a look at how this changes affects the little guy, the middle guy, and the wealthy guy in a fictitious New York setting:
The Little Guy: Here’s a fellow who is renting an apartment for his family and he has to deal with landlord security interest. For people who rent and have tenant security, their landlords pay them interest on it and the landlords are allowed to keep 1% per year, essentially as a fee for keeping track of the tenants. When interest rates are low (as they have been for the past few years), it’s not uncommon to have a rate of 1.25%, of which the landlord keeps 1%; this leaves the .25% to the tenant. For example, if the tenant had a $5K security deposit, his interest is $62.50. The landlord would keep $50, leaving $12.50 for the tenant. But the tenant will have to now pay tax on the full $62.50. Even at a modest tax rate of 25%, the tax would be $15.75; therefore the tenant earns $12.50, pays $15.75 in taxes, with a net loss of $3.25.
The Middle Guy: This person has filed a lawsuit to recover lost wages. In most lawsuits (except physical injury), the legal settlement is taxable. It is not uncommon that, between the lawyer and his fees, they keep 35% and the person keeps 65%. That means, if he wins $100K in his lawsuit, the lawyer gets $35K and he gets $65K. But now, under this change in the provision, his $100K win is taxed on the full amount even though he only actually received 65%. Not only is this unequitable, but it is likely to push him into a new tax bracket. That means he now pays $40K to the IRS (~ 40% tax bracket including federal and state taxes), plus the $35K to the lawyer, netting him only $25K out of the original $100K.
The Wealthy Guy: We have a hedge fund investor. When you have hedge fund investments, rather than reporting and paying taxes on profit, the IRS requires you to break it up into component parts. (Those component parts include interest, qualified and non-qualified dividends, short term gains, and long term gains.) These are all things that contribute to the positive side of calculation. On the negative side, you have operating expenses. The investor then profits from the net of the income, less the expenses. Prior to the change in the tax law, all of the other expenses that reduce profit – which, with hedge funds, include virtually all operating expenses to earn income, including fees to the managers – were required to be recorded as miscellaneous itemized deductions. Now, with the removal of the deduction, the hedge fund guy has to pay taxes on all of it. For instance say he earned a net profit of $2 million. It was reported to him as income of $3.5 million and operating expenses of $1.5 million, thus netting him the $2 million. Now, even though he earned $2 million, he now pays taxes on the full $3.5 million. The average tax rate for such a taxpayer may be approximately 40% (32% for federal + 8% NY taxes). This means he pays about $1.4 million in taxes. Therefore, hedge fund guy makes $2 million net, pays an actual effective tax rate of 70% (because he is taxed on the full $3.5 million) and gets to keep only $600,000. It should also be noted that if the hedge fund lost money, he would get little-to-no tax benefit as a result of that loss.
The loss of the miscellaneous itemized deductions affects all levels of taxpayers. Simply put, if you can’t deduct miscellaneous itemized expenses, you wind up paying taxes on income that you actually didn’t earn. That is simply outrageous — and unfortunately, it is now the case as a result of last year’s tax reform. Allowing such deductions is truly the construct for fair tax law; everything else is merely subsidies, politics, picking winners and losers. Congress must act to restore this equitable provision and restore confidence to the taxpayers.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TRUMP
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which has been beneficial on the corporate side of tax reform. On the individual side, Congress allowed politics to get in the way of real reform, and that is inexcusable. The most egregious example of this was the elimination the miscellaneous itemized deduction.
The miscellaneous itemized deduction was truly the only legitimate deduction in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Its inclusion was absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the tax code. This deduction allowed taxpayers the ability to write off expenses that were incurred as part of the process to earn the income they are taxed on! For instance, under prior tax law, a person who earned $100K in a business but had to pay $30K in legal fees to get it, would pay taxes on only the $70K net that was actually made during the process. With the new change now removing the miscellaneous itemized deduction, this person will have to pay taxes on the full $100K!
Simply put, if you can’t deduct miscellaneous itemized expenses, you wind up paying taxes on income that you actually didn’t earn. That is simply outrageous — and unfortunately, it is now the case as a result of last year’s tax reform. Allowing such deductions is truly the construct for fair tax law; everything else is merely subsidies, politics, picking winners and losers. Congress must act to restore this equitable provision and restore confidence to the taxpayers.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
The Trump Administration is on the path to rack up a trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2018-2019, due to a combination of declining total tax revenues and administrative overspending.
The federal government collected a record $1,521,589,000,000 in individual income taxes through the first eleven months of fiscal 2018 while corporation income tax collections and total federal tax collections were in decline.
Trump needs to work on cutting spending in order to reduce the massive deficit he has accumulated this past year. It wasn’t good when Obama did it and it’s not good that Trump is doing it.
