Select Page

Governor Cuomo: Clueless or Dangerous?

Governor Cuomo has come out blasting the new tax law, and in particular the substantial reduction in the deduction for State and Local Taxes (“SALT”), as unconstitutional and an “attack only on blue states.”

But everybody who has any knowledge of taxation and its constitutionality knows that Cuomo’s assertion is ludicrous. The SALT deduction – and ALL deductions – are at the complete discretion of Congress.  And as long as deductions apply under the same rules to every taxpayer no matter where situated, constitutionality can never be an issue  All the Governor’s raving does is show that he and his entire staff are either totally clueless,  or they know that their statements are total nonsense, but think so little of voters that they can be fired up with something that is utterly phony.

If Cuomo is concerned about what is devastating to New Yorkers, it is astounding that he is objecting to this law and yet he did not object to other tax issues in the past that clearly targeted his constituents. Despite acknowledging the very bad effects of high taxes on New Yorkers,  Where was Cuomo’s concern when:

1) the federal government (Obama) raised taxes on capital gains by almost 60%?
2) the federal government raised the regular rate by 25%?

Furthermore:

1) Cuomo reneged on his campaign promises and kept income tax rates on New York’s high income earners outrageously high,
2) he continues to hide from his constituents that his tax law already denies New Yorkers some or all of their deduction for SALT.
3) he continues to hide that NY tax law also denies middle and high income earners significant parts of the charitable deduction as well, buried so deep that most New Yorkers are not even aware they are being fleeced.
4) as a final point, a New Yorker who dies leaving $10 million to his heirs would now pay no federal estate tax – but he would owe $1.06 million to New York State.

But now Cuomo is bothered by the elimination of the SALT deduction in New York? He was AFFIRMATIVELY IN FAVOR of all of these past provisions,  which have been devastating to his constituents for some time.  Cuomo’s sudden compassion is complete hypocrisy.

Why the Individual Mandate (Tax!) Needs To Go

While we’re on the subject of tax reform, one particular item that could be included in the package is the elimination of the individual mandate.  Since SCOTUS classified the penalty as a tax, it is one that can be repealed as part of the reform, and would produce an estimated savings of $338 billion over 10 years, according to current CBO figures.

Eliminating the individual mandate would not affect Medicaid or pre-existing conditions; it would simply allow taxpayers to have the freedom to decide if he or she wants to forego insurance without being penalized (taxed) for their choice.  According to the Wall Street Journal and IRS data, more than 90% of households who paid the “individual shared responsibility payment” (tax) earned less than $75,000. The tax is essentially a tax on the poor.

Republicans would be wise to repeal the mandate, ease the tax burden on taxpayers, and use the savings gained within the rest of the tax package to strengthen other parts of the reform proposals and provide meaningful relief for all taxpayers.

 

Senate Release Its Own Tax Plan; Wants to Delay Corporate Tax Cuts

The GOP Senate released its own version of a tax reform plan with a few differences from the House version. The most notable example is a one-year delay on cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% — meaning that the tax change would not take affect until 2019.

Their rationale is that the cost of the marginal cut would save $100 billion in costs. One drawback, however, is that companies would likely just sit and wait to make major changes and business decisions. This would certainly delay economic recovery.

In another departure from the House, the Senate bill would eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), a move that is positive, yet affects states with high taxes. This was originally in the House bill, but after pushback from places such as New York, California, and other high-tax states, the House modified the deduction to allow a cap of $10,000. This full elimination is really what needs to happen; it puts all taxpayers around the country on a level playing field, especially if it helps to reduce federal tax rates across the board.

The House and Senate also differ in the estate tax. While the House has a plan to repeal the estate tax entirely by 2024, the Senate plan does not. Instead, it will only target a select few taxpayers, by doubling the size of estates that are exempt from being taxed. The estate tax is a punitive tax and really should be eliminated; the House form is much better.

Finally, the Senate bill would lower the top marginal rate by 1%, to 38.5%. While a slight reduction is better than none, neither bill version goes far enough. The final tax reform plan must include a return to at least the Bush tax cut rates (35%) if Congress is serious about really jump-starting the economy.

It will be interesting to see what the final form takes. A true tax reform bill, like the IRC code reforms of 1986, are long overdue. The taxpayer deserves a cleaner, more streamlined tax code.

Dealing with the Ten Year Budget Reconciliation Issue

A major problem in constructing tax legislation is the “No deficit after 10 years” problem.

It takes a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass permanent legislation. A key exception is what is known as “budget reconciliation”, whereby financial budget items, including tax changes, can pass with a simple majority vote. But this requires that any proposed legislation cannot produce a deficit after 10 years. To satisfy this requirement, legislation often contains a provision that it will terminate at the end of the tenth year.

The Bush tax cuts of 2001 (and 2003) was the poster child for that problem. Tax rates were reduced in 2001 and 2003 using budget reconciliation This required that the lower rates would automatically expire (sunset) in 2011 so as to comply with the “no deficit after 10 years” issue. Everyone ignored the cuts which then became a big headache and political battle when the time came to renew them –  or let them expire.  After ten years, the lower rates suddenly terminated for those most important for growing the economy, creating one of the largest tax increases and worst economic recoveries in history. This disaster has made Congress hesitant of passing badly needed tax cuts and reform in fear of the 10 year spring back. But this does not to be so.

The best way to deal with sunset clauses within the tax code is to extend them annually during the budget process so that we don’t enact a tax change and then forget about it over time. This is something to consider as Congress embarks on potential major reforms  to the tax code in the coming months.

Trump’s tax reform proposal includes a major pro-growth change to depreciation rules. The change would allow for claiming an immediate deduction for the cost of new equipment, without having to spread the write–off over many years.  This would be a boon to the economy. But due to budget constraints this change would likely be scheduled to terminate after 10 years. That should not be allowed to happen. Instead Congress should examine the policy yearly, and extend it out an additional year  from that date. This way the tenth year will never come and there will be no unnecessary tax battle.  This process could continue until there are the votes to make the provision permanent.

Senate Democrats and Moral Posturing

While reading the New York Times’ assessment of the upcoming tax cut bill, a sentence popped out at me: “Wary of any tax legislation that benefits the rich, Democrats have taken a firm stance against Republican policies that would add to the deficit and said they will not support a bill that does not pay for itself.” (“Senate Republicans Embrace Plan For $1.5 Trillion Tax Cut,” NYT: Sept 19, 2017).

This is laughable! Did the Democrats take a “firm stance” at any time during the Obama Administration against policies that added to the deficit? Of course not.

Indeed, most of the article was an attempt to paint the Republicans as hypocrites for trying to pass a tax cut plan that may or may not add to the federal debt after 10 years — while staying utterly silent about the fact that federal debt doubled during the Obama Administration, and each fiscal year ended in a deficit! The sudden interest in some sort of fiscal responsibility from the Democrats rings hollow.

New Administration, Same Old Spending

The Trump Administration has continued the same path of deficit spending as its predecessors.

(CNSNews.com) –
The federal government collected record total tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016 through the end of August),
according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Through August, the federal government collected approximately $2,966,172,000,000 in total tax revenues.

That was $8,450,680,000 more (in constant 2017 dollars) than the previous record of $2,957,721,320,000 in total tax revenues (in 2017 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2016.

At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.

Individual income taxes have provided the largest share (47.9 percent) of federal revenues so far this fiscal year. From Oct. 1 through the end of August, the Treasury collected $1,421,997,000,000 in individual income taxes.

Payroll taxes provided the second largest share (35.9 percent), with the Treasury collecting $1,065,751,000,000 in these taxes.

The $233,631 in corporate income taxes collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 equaled only 8.6 percent of total tax collections.

The $21,172,000,000 collected in estate and gift taxes equaled only 0.71 percent of total taxes collected this fiscal year.

(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

WSJ: JP Morgan and SPLC

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel had some sharp words regarding Jamie Dimon’s hefty donation to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC):

Corporate America will do almost anything to stay on the safe side of public opinion—at least as it’s defined by the media. CEOs will apologize, grovel, resign, settle. They will even, as of this month, legitimize and fund an outfit that exists to smear conservatives.

The press is still obsessing over President Trump’s incompetent handling of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., and that has suited some profiteers just fine. The notorious Southern Poverty Law Center is quietly cashing in on the tragedy, raking in millions on its spun-up reputation as a group that “fights hate.” Apple CEO Tim Cook informed employees that his company is giving $1 million to SPLC and matching employee donations. J.P. Morgan Chase is pitching in $500,000, specifically to further the SPLC’s “work in tracking, exposing and fighting hate groups and other extremist organizations,” in the words of Peter Scher, the bank’s head of corporate responsibility.

What Mr. Scher is referring to is the SPLC’s “Hate Map,” its online list of 917 American “hate groups.” The SPLC alone decides who goes on the list, but its criteria are purposely vague. Since the SPLC is a far-left activist group, the map comes down to this: If the SPLC doesn’t agree with your views, it tags you as a hater.

Let’s not mince words: By funding this list, J.P. Morgan and Apple are saying they support labeling Christian organizations that oppose gay marriage as “hate groups.” That may come as a sour revelation to any bank customers who have donated to the Family Research Council (a mainstream Christian outfit on the SPLC’s list) or whose rights are protected by the Alliance Defending Freedom (which litigates for religious freedom and is also on the list).

Similarly put out may be iPhone owners who support the antiterror policies espoused by Frank Gaffney’s Washington think tank, the Center for Security Policy (on the SPLC’s list). Or any who back the proposals of the Center for Immigration Studies (on the list).

These corporations are presumably in favor of the SPLC’s practice of calling its political opponents “extremists,” which paints targets on their backs. The group’s “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” lists Mr. Gaffney (who worked for the Reagan administration); Maajid Nawaz (a British activist whose crimes include tweeting a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad ); and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali refugee who speaks out against Islamic extremism).

The SPLC has tarred the respected social scientist Charles Murray, author of the well-regarded book “Losing Ground,” as a “white nationalist.” Mr. Murray has been physically assaulted on campus as a result. He happens to be married to an Asian woman and has Asian daughters, so the slur is ludicrous. But what’s a little smearing and career destruction if J.P. Morgan Chase gets some good headlines?

Wealthy Connecticut is Not So Wealthy

Despite Connecticut’s status as one of the wealthiest states in the country, its fiscal health is in rapid decline.  A hefty debt load has left the state without a budget for two months as lawmakers squabble how to best deal with the reality of “high taxes, outmigration, falling revenues and $50 billion of unfunded pension liabilities.”

Governor Malloy has an executive order ready to go into effect that will reduce or eliminate funds for localities and schools if the state government cannot come to a consensus. Lawmakers are staring down a multi-billion deficit for the next two years so austerity measures could be both drastic and necessary.

According to Reuters, “one major factor for the debt load is municipal spending. Some $23 billion of outstanding municipal debt has also constrained spending. Bondholders must be paid ahead of most other expenses like non-essential services and payments to vendors….Connecticut has borrowed for decades to fund school construction, whereas nearly all other states typically borrow at the local level for those projects.”

 Other issues besides municipal projects have wreaked havoc. Skyrocketing pension costs have been a major contributor, although Connecticut has been staring down this problem for nearly a decade;  Connecticut “piled on debt to bolster its public pensions, selling $2.3 billion of bonds in April 2008.” And budget deficits are not new; 18 months after the bond sale, “in December 2009, the state sold $916 million of economic recovery notes to close a budget deficit after depleting its rainy day fund during the Great Recession.”

So here we have a debt-ridden state  — quite possibly the worst of all 50 states —  suffering from financial woes for years now with only bandaid solutions. Sufficient tax revenue is not the problem; zealous overspending and fiscal mismanagement is.  Unfortunately, Connecticut is one of several states facing the same issues; state insolvency is going to get worse in many places before it gets better.

Bloomburg: Most Economist Think Tax Reform Will Happen

According to Bloomberg’s monthly economist poll, 78% of respondents think that Congress will be successful with tax cuts prior to mid-term elections next year — though they may be less ambitious than what has been originally planned.

Trump has promised to make this a priority. Whether or not this is a permanent change to the IRC — much like the reforms of 1986 — remains to be seen. Bloomberg notes that “White House officials have said they’re still committed to a permanent tax revamp, and the plan is to start hearings and a markup of a tax bill after Labor Day so a version can get through the House in October and the Senate in November.”

Tax reform and cuts are an indispensable way to boost floundering GDP growth, which has remained below 2% now for several years.  Healthy GDP growth — 3% or higher — is imperative to restoring confidence in our continuously weak economy of the last decade.

 

Nearly 1400 Counties to Have One or Zero Insurers in 2018

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have published data which projects that 1,332 counties (over 40%)  will have only one health insurer on Obamacare in 2018 and 49 will have none.  According to CNSNews, “the data comes from the Health Insurance Exchanges Issuer County Map, which shows projected issuer participation on the Health Insurance Exchanges in 2018 based on the issuer public announcements made prior to late July of 2017.”

Successful healthcare systems do not continuously lose insurers, accumulate massive debt, and leave citizens with little to no choice. Obamacare has continued to wreak havoc on our citizens. It has to go. We can do better.