by | BIDEN, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, TRUMP
Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden not only wants to return capital gains to Obama-era rates, but furthermore he would increase them while simultaneously returning the top rate on ordinary income. Biden has said, “I believe we should, in fact, the capital gains tax should be at what the highest minimum tax should be; we should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent instead of 20 percent.”
Add to that the 3.8% Obamacare tax (NIIT) instituted in 2013, and he would have some taxpayers effectively paying a 43.4% long-term capital gains tax! The current total top rate is 23.8%
Biden should know better. The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate by the Obama administration was devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there was reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection. Furthermore, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects went down, assuring that fewer of them went forward.
Additionally, there were a number of localities, like the state of California and New York City, which have tax rates of 12% or more and also a large concentration of wealthy people and high performing businesses. Obama’s capital gains rates of more than 37% brought elective capital projects to a crawl. And Biden wants to raise them even higher?
Shame on Biden. Why sell an asset to fund further investment and opportunity when the government takes a large share of the gain with the loss remaining all yours? It makes virtually no economic sense to do so. A higher capital gains rate put a stranglehold on risk-taking and available capital, and would negatively impact the economy.
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, 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, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
House Republicans have put forth a bill that would make some of the tax cuts and changes permanent instead of expiring after a few years. This includes:
- The reduction in the individual tax rates
- The increased new standard deduction, which went to $12000/individual and $24000 married couples
- Special deduction for pass-through business owners
It’s worth noting that the corporate tax reduction was already permanent with last year’s law. Other additional financial parts of this new legislation include:
- Allowing employers to join together to offer 401Ks in order to lower costs
- Allow 401K users who have an annuity to transfer it tax-free to an IRA
- Remove the age ceiling (70½) requiring distributions from IRAs and 401Ks, and continue to contribute up to $6,500/year in an IRA
- Create a new universal savings account with a maximum of $2,500/year
after tax funds that can used for non-retirement purposes
- Allow parents to remove up to $7,500 from a retirement plan without penalty under certain child-related conditions.
- Allow 529 college savings accounts to fund various other educational expenses, including apprenticeship programs, home schooling, or child student loan payments.
As if on cue, Democrats rebuke the legislation as being overly beneficial to the wealthy — as if the economic upswing which has helped everyone across-the-board, has not happened. They also chide the bill for adding to the federal deficit, even though Democrats were virtually silent when Obama had very sizeable deficits throughout most his administration. However, putting forth the legislation at this time indicates that Republicans are interested in talking about the strong economy ahead of the midterms elections — which is the smartest thing they can do right now. The GOP missed the chance to make the Bush Tax cuts permanent. They would do well not to make the same mistake twice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS
The Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous article, “The Gender Pay Gap Is a Lot Bigger Than You Think” that used every possible misconception, misstatement, and lie about the gender gap.
The author, Maddy Dychtwald, talks about an 18 cent pay gap differential, but instead of acknowledging that any differentials that exist relate to choices, the article only focuses on retirement funds.
There are many reasons for a pay gap – but it isn’t merely because of one’s gender. It has been shown time and again that many women have alternative career paths by choice: different jobs, amounts of time worked, lifestyle flexibility, and risks in occupation to name a few; therefore, any difference in the pay is a result of those choices and not some sort of discrimination. Dychtwald’s conclusion implies that a gender wage gap is “damaging to women” because women will likely have substantially less money saved and earned over her lifetime. Yet she doesn’t even consider that, for many women, working full time may be “damaging” to women who have alternative life goals — such as raising a family — and that amassing retirement funds might not be the ultimate end focus.
Wage gaps exist as a result of job choices, not gender. It is totally distressing that the Wall Street Journal’s typically consistent and balanced reporting on the concept of gender pay gap allowed this outrageous article to be published — without response.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
FEE.org recently shed light on the ridiculous behavior of Oxfam, a charity that is supposed to be dedicated to fighting poverty. Indeed, their statement of purpose proclaims “The purpose of Oxfam is to help create lasting solutions to the injustice of poverty. “
However, careful reading of their most recent report show that Oxfam spends most of its time, energy, and our donated funds monitoring and writing about the false “need” to reducing wealth and income inequality – the very opposite of fighting poverty. If poverty is the “state of being very poor” then it follows that the elimination of such destitution would mean moving from being very poor to less poor, i.e., increasing wealth. Thus, it would follow that an increase of wealth would to be an inherently good as a means to achieve the goal of poverty reduction, right? Not so with Oxfam. Growing wealth is increasingly seen as a bad thing.
Indeed, last year, Oxfam seemed preoccupied with the notion that some people have too much wealth. In their 2017 report, “Oxfam condemns the fact that there is now a dramatic increase in the number of billionaires around the world. It considers this phenomenon as indicative of “extreme wealth.”
The fact is that economic growth is NOT a zero sum game – the more growth there is, the more benefits to all levels of society. There is no doubt that the creations of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have had enormous effects in reducing world poverty – despite the fact that they became billionaires in the process.It is also the fact that an increase in the amount of wealthy persons indicates that upward mobility can and is being achieved by more people. In fact, “global extreme poverty has fallen dramatically over recent decades. It is likely that extreme poverty will be eliminated within the current generation. This won’t satisfy Oxfam, however, because it concerns itself with the rich, not the destitute.”
Not content with having mismatched priorities, Oxfam has also cobbled together a list of suggestions for global, national, and local governments, suggestions that do not relate to poverty reduction. Oxfam urges “policies to tackle all forms of gender discrimination, promote positive social norms and attitudes towards women and women’s work, and rebalance power dynamics at the household, local, national and international levels.”
When a charity loses its purpose and becomes a social engineering, social justice organization, one should not be supporting it. Poverty is egregious. Lifting folks out of poverty is important. To not realize that increasing world economic growth and wealth – yes, and even making many more billionaires – has been what has been so effective in reducing world poverty, simply shows economic illiteracy. berate an increase in wealth and instead desire to “level the playing field” betrays its mission; Oxfam is to be avoided.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, SCOTUS, TAXES
This week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of taxation for businesses that lack a physical nexus. Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority opinion, believed that the emergence of the internet as a mainstream medium for interstate commerce caused the physical presence rule to become further removed from economic reality and resulted in significant revenue losses to states.
The revenue loss argument is nonsense; it is a back-door way for states to add additional levies on their citizens under the guise of leveling the playing field . For years now, we’ve been hearing the protestations that there is dearth of tax revenue from which states are suffering terribly.
But this is simply and patently untrue. State legislatures have always set their tax rates with the full understanding that they would not actually collect that supposed billions of internet “slippage”. It’s not like there is a line item in state budgets that lists “uncollected online tax” or “tax cheats” with a number attached. Sales tax is merely one of many levies whose revenues positively fund government spending. This online tax will now just be yet another tax (and therefore revenue) for the coffers. Higher marginal rates exists because state-government spending levels are higher — not because of some “absence of tax” nonsense that forces states to raise rates.
In our states’ budgets, current taxes rates (income + sales, if applicable) are set at levels appropriate to cover the calculations of state spending. 49 out of 50 states require a balanced budget. These states are fully aware that taxes are “avoided” (internet and out-of-state) and therefore don’t even count them in their budget calculations. So there is no concrete “absence of revenue”. Instead, by passing this new internet tax, states are now given free reign to add a tax without taking the political heat for it, under the guise of “fairness”.
Looked at it another way, it is unconscionable for this ruling to stand without Congressional action that requires states to lower their marginal rates so that the new tax makes everything revenue neutral. Higher marginal rates as they are already burden taxpayers. This internet tax doesn’t fix anything — because there is nothing in their budgets to be “fixed”. True tax reform (a true “fix”) always means broadening the base and thereby reducing the overall burden of taxes. Instead of that, what we have with ruling will be a revenue grab.
Another fallacy for supporters is that including the internet tax in transactions is simply a matter of adding a quick, little tax line where there was none before. But it is highly irrational for legislators to believe that compliance with multiple tax jurisdictions for vendors will be an easy and unburdensome process. The recordkeeping will be excruciating. From an accountant’s perspective, here’s how:
The effect of distressing our businesses to comply with this online tax collection will be a drag on the economy. Can you imagine vendors needing to figure such things as whether marshmallows are a taxable food/candy in some jurisdictions while it might be a non-taxable food in others? To think that software can seamlessly make this distinction is ludicrous (especially software run by the government.) When has the government ever actually streamlined anything?
Internet tax collection for 10,000 local tax jurisdictions or even just 50 states is too much. If such a tax is to be implemented, it should be either a tax in which every state accepts one set of rules OR a tax payable to the state-of-sale only — which would ultimately be better for tax competition overall. Without a fix, compliance will certainly be massive and burdensome — which will hurt this economy that is slowing but surely recovering from the last ten years.
Arthur Laffer observed that “the principle of levying the lowest possible tax rate on the broadest possible tax base is the way to improve the incentives to work, save and produce which are necessary to reinvigorate the American economy and cope with the nation’s fiscal problems”. But a hodge-podge “internet tax” doesn’t do that. Without a solid Congressional solution for correctly calculating and remitting sales tax in 10,000+ jurisdictions, we will have a nightmare for accountants and businesses — at the cost of grabbing another revenue stream for our bloated, overspending government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
The Washington Post recently published a ridiculous article about deficit spending and entitlements from a group of former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Unsurprisingly, these economists scoff at the idea that entitlements are a cause for alarm, and predictably attack the Jobs and Tax bill that passed last year by President Trump. Of course, it’s to be expected, as the author-contributors were hand-picked from either only the Clinton or Obama administrations. Let’s take a closer look at some of their assertions:
“It is dishonest to single out entitlements for blame. The federal budget was in surplus from 1998 through 2001, (read: Pro-Clinton), “but large tax cuts and unfunded wars have been huge contributors to our current deficit problem” (read: anti-Bush). “The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending” (read: anti-Trump). “This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions” (read: anti-Trump).
What’s noticeably absent? Any mention of Obama. Where were these so-called economists when Obama went spending crazy? When the deficit doubled in the eight years of Obama’s administration? Deficit spending is an undisputed crisis and a large driver of that is, in fact, entitlements — a problem that has continued to be punted each year; in fact the latest SSA report, released June 5, plainly states that Medicare’s Trust Fund is set to run out in 8 years, and Social Security’s in 16. The Social Security program’s costs will exceed its income this year for the first time since 1982, forcing the program to dip into its nearly $3 trillion trust fund to cover benefits. But these numbers and projections are nothing new, so it is right for the Hoover Institute to continue to insist on reform in the face of years of inaction.
At a time when these very authors note that “the U.S. unemployment rate is down to 4.1 percent, and economic growth could well increase in 2018. Consumer and business confidence is high,” to then hold up Clinton as the pinnacle of economic excellence, spear Bush and Trump as reckless, and to completely ignore the profligate spending of Obama is disingenuous. The bias of the Washington Post shines through with this one.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, TAXES
Now that home-buying season is upon us, is it any wonder that high income tax states and property tax states are again seeing an exodus from the excessive burden? With the Jobs and Tax Cut Act — which rightly capped deductions of state and local taxes — some taxpayers are feeling a “disproportionate” share of cost as taxation is properly realigned. It’s no wonder that high tax states such as New York and California are being traded for places like Florida and Nevada. When lawmakers recklessly spend their constituents money and then finally have to reconcile it, taxpayers who are fed up with mismanagement are smart to seek refuge elsewhere.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TRUMP
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.
