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.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POTUS, TRUMP
It seems like spending reductions, smaller government, and eliminating waste are no longer Republican ideals. When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos presented a budget that did just that, Congress turned a deaf ear. What’s more, they made it difficult for her to even make some systemic changes to the Department of Education that (like most departments) desperately needs.
As part of the massive spending bill that was passed last week, Congress “awarded the department a $2.6 billion boost when Mrs. DeVos had requested a $9 billion cut. She had sought to dismantle her agency’s central budget office, a move she said would create a leaner structure, and to cut the number of field offices in the civil-rights division to four from 12. The spending package included specific measures preventing her from doing so.”
Apparently, trying to implement change caused some problems among more seasoned politicians that Congress just put a stop to by hamstringing her efforts at education and fiscal reform: “in the spending package, lawmakers forbade Mrs. DeVos from dismantling the budget office and increased the civil-rights division’s funding by $8.5 million, specifying that the additional money couldn’t be used to reduce staff, such as through buyouts. The civil-rights division is tasked with, among other things, enforcing Title IX.”
It’s a shame that politics over policy has gotten so pervasive even among Republicans. Such ridiculous behavior shows how broken our system has become — which is why it’s getting more and more likely that a huge Democrat sweep will happen at midterms.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues good results (a strong jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes DOWN? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was strong, one would assume the stock market would respond positively. But often that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do poorly? Wall Street professionals claim to understand it. They point out that the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When the economy is strong, the market has often already gone up in anticipation of the improving economy. But with the stronger economy, the Fed is likely to hike interest rates, threatening the strong growth going forward. Also, with interest rates rising, investors have the alternative of earning fixed, safe rates of return by buying bonds.
Though I do follow that logic, I do not agree with it. My strong belief is that as long as the economy is strong, with sound existing economic policies in place, I believe that financial growth and profitability will continue. And I would view downturns caused by positive financial results as a buying opportunity.
The economy has begun the road to renewed growth – finally getting rid of the Obama stagnation caused by increasing taxes, stifling regulation, and anti-business sentiment. It’s unreasonable to believe that the concern of interest rates should have more sway than a growing economy. Even if interest rates rise, does anyone really believe that a business will forego an expansion opportunity just because borrowing costs are 1 or 2 percentage points higher?
Of course, it would make sense for the stock market to become weaker if President Trump goes ahead with his economically ignorant tariff and anti-free-trade policies, as well as his economically stagnating immigration restrictions.
But as for now, the fluctuations are a confirmation of a stronger economy and the multiple opportunities afforded to investors.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, TAXES
The IRS recently announced plans to “close a loophole,” suggesting that hedge-fund managers have been suddenly trying avoid paying higher taxes on carried-interest profits. This issue, however, is really a non-starter, and should not be getting the coverage that it is.
The IRS wrote a rule that exempts carried interest from a longer holding period when it’s paid to a corporation rather than an individual. But it didn’t specify that it applied solely to regular corporations, whose income is subject to double taxation. What some are ridiculously suggesting is that an S-Corp “loophole” exists to allow a hedge fund manager to treat a two- or three -year capital gain as long- term. That is a joke.
When the IRS wrote the rule, they said it applies for all flow-thru, but not corporations. The reason why is because corporations don’t have capital gains rate. So if you have a hedge-fund manager for a corporation, they pay taxes at regular rates. All of a sudden, some people are suggesting that hedge fund managers might make their entity an S-Corp, so they could get the one-year provision instead of the three-year provision.
It should be obvious to anyone that the law would be implemented as applying to non flow-thru entities only. It only affects the one year holding period which was raised to three. This is unimportant anyway, because most (and certainly most substantial) gains usually take more than three years to develop anyway.
Almost every article published on this subject also incorrectly states that carried interests converts ordinary income to capital gain. In fact, it simply allocates to the manager income of the same nature as earned – ordinary, dividend, short or long-term gain.
You could probably fix the law by adding a couple of words of clarification. Every tax law is subject to the Technical Corrections Act, which is page and pages of errors that get changed. Yet all of a sudden, people are writing articles about it the rule being a loophole. It’s not, and it’s nonsense. This issue should not be getting any serious attention.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
Americans for Tax Reform is keeping a running list of companies who have chosen to make “tax reform bonuses, raises, or 401(k) hikes” as a result of the tax law passed in December by Congress.
The list is sorted both by state and alphabetically; you can read a description of the positive financial choices each company has made as a result of the tax savings incurred by the tax overhaul. It’s worthwhile to see how companies across America are giving back.
You can read the entire list here.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAXES
The latest example of sin tax stupidity comes from Seattle, Washington. The new tax on sugary drinks began on January 1, 2018, as a means to “discourage consumers from buying sugary drinks while raising revenue for nutrition and education programs.” It’s a tax of 1.75 cents per ounce.
For example, it will now cost $2.14 for a 20-ounce soda, up from $1.79. The tax on a 12-pack of Coke cans will be $2.52. And a 2-liter bottle of Coke which used to sell at $2.79 is now $4. Diet and zero-calorie drinks are exempt.
“In addition to regular sodas like Coke, the tax applies to sport drinks such as Gatorade and energy drinks like Red Bull. The tax will apply to any nonalcoholic beverage or beverage concentrate that lists as an ingredient any caloric-based sweetener. For that reason, many juice-based drinks will be taxed.”
These taxes are absolutely ridiculous. It hurts both consumers and store owners alike. For example, “in Philadelphia, where a sweetened-beverage tax took effect this year, non-chain retailers have passed on 100 percent of the cost, according to preliminary research.” And for store owners who just happen to live on the edge of the city, shoppers are not changing their behavior — just their geography; they’ll shop across the border of Seattle, leaving those store owners now with products more expensive than their nearby counterparts across the city, which hurts their business.
These sin taxes are merely tax grabs for the government but do little towards changing the actual behavior they intend by the existence of the tax. The real effect is that people will shift their purchase to outside the city, which will eventually cause a tax decline for Seattle — as seen in currently in Philadelphia. Government does not seem to understand that people will actually go out of their way (literally!) to avoid paying illogical, egregious taxes.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, POLITICS, TAXES
In a continued tantrum against the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Governor Cuomo called the tax changes an “economic missile” as he unveiled his new budget proposal for the fiscal year. His solution? Raise more taxes mainly on businesses and restructure certain taxes so that New York gets its share of the pie.
One major change Cuomo has proposed is to eliminate the state income tax on wages for many New Yorkers; it would be replaced by a new payroll tax paid for by employers. This would be an disastrous burden for New York businesses who would conceivably have to cut wages in order to cover the cost of such a tax and deal with an excessive amount of increased paperwork.
Other ridiculous ideas include: a) a 2-cents-per-milligram tax on all opioids produced, paid for by the drug manufacturer; b) expanding the internet sales tax, a measure that has already failed twice; c) a 10-cents-per-milliliter tax on vapor products, paid for by the distributors; and d) a $120 “safety inspection fee” for motor coaches, ambulances, and other for-hire, for-profit cars that carry passengers subject to inspection by the DoT.
Just as egregious is Cuomo’s proposal to go after health insurers who stand to benefit from the tax reform bill. As some insurers could see up to a 40% reduction on their federal corporate taxes, Cuomo wants to pick their pockets by implementing a 14 percent surcharge on those gains in order to close the budget deficits.
For a governor who once emphasized his fiscal restraint, this budget shows how unhinged and out-of-touch with New Yorkers and New York businesses Cuomo has become.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, TAXES
It is utterly laughable that Amazon has announced that the New York City metropolitan area is among the final potential locations for Amazon’s second headquarters.
New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo is consistently anti-business, with burdensome regulations that are tort lawyers dream, always in the top three of highest taxes in the country, a Tax Department renown for its invasiveness, and consistently threatening to raise taxes on his most successful constituents.
Mayor Bill de Blasio of NY City is practically a self-proclaimed socialist. He has stated “xxxxxxxxx”. New York City has its own set of Corporation, S Corporation, partnership, LLC, and individual taxes that is added on top of the State level taxes. Many of these taxes were originally intended to be temporary decades ago, but have never been allowed to expire. It is so expensive to operate in NY City, that virtually all viable businesses exist solely to service NYC individuals and entities that are located there. NY City is also consistently ranked as one of the worst states to do business, coupled with the highest tax burden in the nation.
It appears that the only possible reason that Amazon could be interested in NY City is that it has extraordinarily liberal/socialist executives. If that is the case, investors in Amazon may need to watch out!
