by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
The IRS is getting ready for Obamacare to be accounted for by every citizen. For completing this section of your tax form, the IRS has published 21 pages of instructions, as well as long forms and tip sheets.
For Americans who do not have Obamacare, the process is simple: check a box indicating you have insurance. For those who enrolled in an Obamacare plan through the Marketplace, they will have a more comprehensive section. If a person opted not to have any insurance, he or she needs to pay the fine/tax, which has been named the “shared responsibility payment”.
Additionally, if you are an Obamacare enrollee, you will not be able to file your taxes until you receive a new Obamacare form, the 1095A. The proposed deadline to send out the forms is January 31, 2015, which also coincides with the date that employers must issue W-2 to their employees.
Form 1095A is necessary; filers need the forms to calculate whether they received the correct subsidy from the government, or if they owe money to cover a difference. If they owe money, that amount will be deducted from any anticipated returns.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Everyone knows that Greece is so far in debt that it is actually impossible for them to ever repay it all. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and most of the rest of the EU is not much better. Even worse than Greece is Japan’s debt; at over 200% of GDP — and growing — it seems hopeless, despite some reputable economists thoughts that since a large portion of the debt is owed by one branch of their government to another, it is somehow not all that bad.
The U.S. debt is now $18 trillion and still growing at a rate higher than it ever was before Obama took office (Obama and Democrat protestations being wrong). We recently issued $1 trillion in new debt just to pay off old debt, despite bringing in record revenues. And when unfunded promises to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits are factored into our liabilities, this debt becomes more than $100 trillion – an amount that has no more likelihood of being paid than Greece’s debt.
Yet all of these countries are fighting over the same issue. Every country knows that its debt was honorably borrowed, and needs to be repaid. One would think that, like an individual or family that incurred too much debt, government spending needs to be reduced to below the level of income, with the excess going to pay down debt. A program to stabilize must present itself as fiscally sustainable so businesses, citizens, and creditors can have renewed confidence.
But the Keynesian mentality – which would argue that such austerity measures would contract the size of the economy, thereby making it even more difficult to pay down debt – is unfortunately winning the day.
I do not believe that many honorable and intelligent people actually believe in this Keynesianism. It is just so much easier politically to tell your constituents that government handouts don’t need to be cut — because in doing so, you risk losing reelection. And populist leaders have a great time casting their (responsible) opponents as scrooges, taking advantage of the lesser educated and poorer individuals who will ultimately be hurt most by these irresponsible, spendthrift policies.
Why do I believe that the Keynesian theory is wrong? Not because of some sophisticated economic theory, but rather some simple history and logic, in no particular order:
1) Government spending wholeheartedly crowds out private spending, substituting inefficient political and crony-based spending for free-market, give-the-public-what-they want spending.
2) After World War II, government spending (military, etc.) dried up overnight. But a free-market, non-coercive environment at the time, allowed private investment to flourish and more than make up for the decline in government spending.
3) The outrageous level of U.S. spending in the last six years has resulted in the poorest recovery since the New Deal; FDR’s meddling only prolonged America’s anemic recovery. But the current sluggish economy should not be surprising either, since Obama’s policies are taken directly from FDR – raising taxes, bad mouthing as well as over-regulating businesses, giving organized labor excessive power, instituting policies that discourage people from working, and hurting international trade.
4) There is no evidence, in the last 50 years, that Keynesian theory worked in the real world. On the contrary, one need not look too far to Northern Europe vs Southern Europe — Latvia compared to Greece — to see the results of strict austerity measures vs fiscal tepidness, and each government’s current level of sustainability. Keynes fails wholeheartedly.
The bottom line is, if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Just because you irresponsibly spent the money does not give you an out. Just because you can think of reasons to delay repayment, doesn’t mean that you should. Just because you are a government doesn’t mean you are exempt from your fiduciary responsibilities. Historically, the only countries to get their debt under control have been those that have cut spending.
Get spending under control and start paying down the national debt!
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The Daily Caller did a great job uncovering more of the information surrounding the writing and passage of Obamacare. Going back to 2009, the chief architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, made two very specific points about the bill: 1) it is unaffordable because there are no cost controls; 2) in order to control costs, treatment would have to be denied.
Below are highlights from the 2009 policy brief:
* “The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue.”
* “So what’s different this time? Why are we closer than we’ve ever been before? Because there are no cost controls in these proposals. Because this bill’s about coverage. Which is good! Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.”
* “The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”
* “There’s no reason the American health care system can’t be, ‘You can have whatever you want, you just have to pay for it.’ That’s what we do in other walks of life. We don’t say everyone has to have a large screen TV. If you want a large screen TV, you have to pay for it. Basically the notion would be to move to a level where everyone has a solid basic insurance level of coverage. Above that people pay on their own, without tax-subsidized dollars, to buy a higher level of coverage.”
However, what the American public was told by Obama is that Obamacare would lower the cost of insurance by $2500. Now we know, even more than ever, that we were told whatever was necessary in order to make the bill palatable enough to eke out passage in Congress despite protestations from much of around the country.
You can read the entire policy brief here.
For more on Jonathan Gruber and Obamacare, go here
How “Obamacare Was Sold on a Pack of Lies”, go here
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The practice of asset forfeiture by the IRS has been highlighted in recent months due to a high-profile case involving a woman who had roughly $33,000 of her money seized by the IRS. The IRS claimed her “pattern” of depositing the money she earned from her restaurant — typically cash and often in sums under $10,000 — was suspicious enough to warrant the plundering of her account.
Several weeks after the public outcry about this woman’s plight, the IRS dropped the case and agreed to return her funds. But here’s the problem. It’s not enough to just give the money back. The IRS needs, at the very least, to pay civil damages. They took assets from a woman who committed no crime, who wasn’t even charged with any crime.
More importantly, the IRS needs to investigate how this case even came about. There was no preponderance of evidence that any crime occurred. There was virtually nothing. The case occurred because an IRS representative watched her accounts over a period of time, and decided – with no basis, investigation, or even inquiry with the taxpayer – that her method of deposits (for which she had a perfectly valid reason in connection with her perfectly legal, decades-owned business) violated a law typically meant to catch money launderers and drug dealers. That is reprehensible.
A few days after the article came out about the case, the IRS issued a policy change over the practice. The IRS stated, “the agency will no longer pursue asset forfeiture in cases in which the source of the funds is legal except in exceptional circumstances and only with the approval of the director of field operations.” This means nothing and changes nothing — because someone higher up on the IRS food chain can still sign off on cases, or when someone within the IRS deems it “an exceptional circumstance”. It’s not good enough.
If the IRS is sincere about regaining the public trust, it needs to clean house, starting with the agents involved in this and other similar forfeiture cases.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Rubio is right and Rand Paul is wrong on the recent Obama deal with Cuba. As someone who spent more than 14 weeks over the last decade in Cuba, I can personally refute the following falsities that are being circulated by supporters of Obama’s rapproachment with Castro.
1) The Cuban people like Castro: This is a joke. Everyone knows if Castro speaks, they must listen on the radio. So they turn up the radio loudly in their own homes – it is common knowledge that there are informers on every block working for the Cuban government — and then they go into another room to avoid actually having to listen to his speeches.
2) Expanding American business will allow the Cubans to see what it is like in America: The Cubans already know what it is like in America — because they know how poor they really are. They just can’t do anything about it because there is such a tightly controlled police state. I recall speaking with a woman and her 12 year old daughter. The woman explained that they had virtually nothing to do. They just spent each day existing with no real life. But it brought tears to my eyes when the woman asked, “are we even more poor than the people in Afghanistan?” She had caught snatches of what was going on over there and from what she could tell, the Cubans were even poorer. Coupled with the fact that their government is brutal, they are resigned to the fact that they can do nothing to improve their own station in life.
3) The Cuban people are generally safe: This is also patently untrue. The police harass citizens for no reason and the people are afraid to travel about their country. There was one episode where I took some people traveling from one city to a nearby beach. Neither of our companions, ladies in their late 20s, had ever been more than 20 miles from their home. When we got to the beach, as long as they stayed with us, they were fine. But they took a smoke break for a few minutes away from us, and when they did not return after about 5 minutes, we went looking for them. We found the ladies being grilled by the police as to why they were not in their hometown. They finally released the girls back to our custody because we were foreigners with hard currency. From there we went on to Havana. The ladies were so afraid at the episode that had just taken place, they would not even dare emerge from the car when we arrived in Havana — even though these girls had never been to the city before. Their brief exchange with Castro’s police was that horrific.
The main reason to oppose this deal is that it will accomplish nothing other than put more money in the Government’s hands, allowing them to be even more brutal to their people. What the Cubans see is that we made a deal with their government, who has made their lives miserable for the last half-century. Rubio is right when he points out that this arrangement will likely do nothing to improve the lives of the Cubans — which should be the basis for any policy initiatives with regard to Cuba. Though I agree with many things Rand Paul has to say, on this issue, he is uninformed.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
I joined the Tea Party in my locality a few years ago when it began because I sincerely believed in its simple, but extremely powerful and direct message:
Low Taxes
Limited, Constitutional Government
Individual liberty
and nothing else. The Tea Party was not to be a political “Party” with positions on every subject under the sun. It would only be involved in its particular concerns, so as not to dilute its message.
Then what is this nonsense, especially in the last year, regarding certain Tea Party groups espousing opinions on other hot-button items? The Tea Party vowed not to stray from its points. With the number of varying “Tea Party” groups all taking on extraneous — and not always agreeing — positions, it only serves to give ammunition to other groups to discredit the Tea Party on non “core” Tea Party issues and point out their inconsistency. This does not help the cause of low taxes, limited government, and individual liberty.
It is not necessary to have an opinion and position on every little thing. The Tea Party would do well to focus on its core tenets only and continue to push that unified message.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Friday before Election Day, the Obama Administration via the Department of Education released a “gainful employment” rule applicable to higher education, which singles out a particular type of learning institution: the for-profit school. The new regulation will prohibit students from being able to receive federal student aid “unless the program can show that their graduates’ annual loan payments do not exceed 20% of discretionary income, or 8% of total earnings.” The Department of Education essentially surmises that for-profit schools do not produce quality programs.
Basically this new rule will throw many for-profit colleges out of business. It’s not the first time a regulation of this kind has been issued, either. A federal court struck down the first attempt put forth by the Administration back in 2012. And yet, this newer version is more stringent — with 7 times as many programs likely to not pass standards/criteria for “gainful employment” now. The estimate is that around 1,400 programs educating 840,000 persons will fail the new magical threshold.
The Administration has stated that the goal of the new rule is to “protect students”, and that the rule is necessary “to ensure that colleges accepting federal funds protect students, cut costs and improve outcomes.” However, the rule is not applicable to public and nonprofit institutions. When pressed for the double standard during a congressional hearing on the topic last spring, Education Secretary Arne Dune said that “development of the college rating systems would address the rest of higher education”. That is a cop-out.
So here we have an Administration interfering with the ability of adults to pursue the educational path that best fits their needs by limiting their choices through the deliberate withholding of financial aid assistance from certain schools or programs that the government deems unfit. The government has chosen to redefine the term “gainful employment” in such a way that many career pathways will now be closed at a myriad of institutions that have previously educated many — especially a large number of poor and/or minority persons. These students quite often lack parental financial assistance anyway, and now removing the option for financial aid adds another barrier to upward mobility.
This ridiculous regulation was opposed in a signed letter by 18 members each of both the Republican and Democrat parties last spring, many of whom are minorities, citing their concerns for its adverse affect on low income students and those from non traditional backgrounds. However, their non-partisan approach fell on deaf ears.
Our country has many options for education — some students thrive a four year public institution; others, a community college or small private school and still others, a for-profit institution. Though Obama has consistently championed college education, this rules changes will make it harder, not easier, for a segment of the population to become a college graduate.
Another troubling aspect is how the rule measures debt. The WSJ points out that, “if the department were merely trying to protect students, then Mr. Obama’s “Pay As You Earn” plan that caps loan payments at 10% of discretionary income would make the rule moot. This is why the rule doesn’t measure graduates’ actual loan payments, but rather the median amount of debt they incur amortized over 15 years for bachelor’s degrees. Many students take up to 25 years to repay their loans.”
And more: “This economic reality is why the Administration is steering students toward loan forgiveness plans like Pay As You Earn. Grads who find non-gainful employment in government or at a nonprofit can get their loans forgiven after 10 years of modest payments. So the White House is encouraging graduates to pursue low-paying jobs in “public service” even as it punishes for-profit colleges whose graduates do precisely that.”
The Administration is once again picking winners and losers, this time in the realm of education. The new rule essentially encourages students to pursue their education — but only at places whose programs and operations are subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
by | FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS, TAXES
If you are one of the millions of Americans who declined health insurance and decided to pay the fee tax fine penalty, be aware that it will be a part of your 2014 tax calculations. The penalty for 2014 is relatively cheap, a means to transition Obamacare into your life, but next year and subsequent years, the penalty goes up swiftly — pressuring you to get a health insurance plan or else pay a somewhat hefty price.
Here’s how it works:
“Beginning in 2014, absent a qualified exemption, you will be required to obtain health insurance. If you fail to comply, you will be subject to a penalty of 1.0% of your annual income or $95.00, whichever is greater. In 2015, the penalty increases to the greater of 2.0% of annual income or $325 per person. The following year it becomes the greater of 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After 2016, it will be indexed to the cost of living. It should also be noted that the maximum penalty is capped at three times the per person penalty. For example, if you earn $28,500 in 2014, 1.0% of your income would equal $285. Therefore, if you earn more than this, your maximum penalty would remain the same. All penalties will be due and payable with your annual federal income tax return. Hence, the penalty for 2014 would be due by April 15, 2015 and the IRS will be the collection agency used.”
The method of assessing and collection the fee is through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The fee will be collected by deducting its cost from a person’s tax refund. But for those who don’t get a refund, the IRS isn’t allowed to demand payment either, so it is unclear how those fees will be attained. This ambiguity also leads to further questions about how Obamacare is being actually being paid for (as the penalty is one of the revenues to help offset the costs).
“For Americans unsure how the mandate applies to them, there’s plenty of information available from the government itself and from many third-party web sites. The law was designed to make it cheaper for most people to buy insurance than pay the penalty fee, which rises from $95 per person or 1% of your income (whichever is greater) in 2014, to $325 per person or 2% of your income in 2015. (In 2015, the maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.)”
Don’t forget too: if you are an Obamacare user, you will have to file an extra form with your taxes, the 1095A. The IRS has a working draft on the form, but doesn’t yet include the instructions on how to calculate the proper subsidy amount. This could potentially cause issues for those who wish to file their taxes right away, because they will have to wait until they receive their form in the mail from the government. To learn more, read here.
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Well, now we know something that has been long suspected for the past four years: the IRS and the White House are sharing taxpayer information.
That has certainly been the suspicion since at least 2010, when a senior White House official, Austan Goolsbee, made a comment about the Koch Brother’s business practices in August 2010. The Weekly Standard was one of the first to cover this indiscretion as part of an article about the growing practice of attacking the Koch Brothers by liberals. From TWS back then:
“While the attention is unwanted for the Kochs, if somewhat expected, a lawyer for Koch Industries now tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the administration may have crossed a line by revealing tax information about Koch Industries. According to Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, a senior Obama administration official told reporters at an August 27 on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:
“So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we’ve literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base.”
Holden tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that this quotation from a senior administration official “came to our attention from different avenues. We are very concerned about why this would be said about us, particularly in this setting. We are concerned where this information would have been obtained from. We also are concerned in light of recent events that we have been singled out by the government and others as a campaign against us because of our political views.“
Additionally, Austan Goolsbee further this very line of thought on an interview shortly thereafter on September 12, 2010 with Chris Wallace.
During that fall of 2010 right before midterms, the Obama Administration started targeting small businesses and the way they pay taxes, as part a push for higher individual rate margins/repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Administration began specifically trying to discredit Koch Industries and a plethora of small businesses by implying that not paying corporate taxes is somehow wrong or underhanded — while omitting that fact many businesses structure themselves as non-corporate entities to avoid the scourge known as double taxation. The White House used the Koch Brothers’ tax structure in an attacking anecdote, and openly discussed tax information that was not publicly available, in order to bolster their own talking points.
This has come back to light now four years later. Last week, TIGTA acknowledged the existence of about 2500 documents that fit the FOIA request, from a group called “Cause of Action”, asking for communication between the IRS and the White House.
Then on Tuesday, TIGTA retreated from its openness by withholding the bulk of the documents. A letter from TIGTA counsel to the group suing for the information, noted that there were 2,509 pages of documents “potentially responsive to your request”, and of those, 2,043 were in fact responsive. However, TIGTA cited tax code and privacy as the reason not to disclose those documents, saying “All of the 2,043 pages of documents we have determined to be responsive were collected by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the determination of possible liability under Title 26 of the United States Code. These pages consist of return information protected by 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and may not be disclosed absent an express statutory exception.”
Clearly, even without knowing the substance of the information, we do now know that the IRS and White House have shared some taxpayer information (roughly 2500 documents worth), which is a stunning breach of impropriety. The Koch Brothers were definitely in the crossfire back in 2010, and have been a concerted target of liberals ever since. Everyone questioned how the White House could know about their confidential taxpayer information. Now we know how. We just don’t know how deeply. Or who else.
The act of the IRS sharing the information is in itself a violation of federal law 26 U.S.C. § 6103, which is the very same law they are using to shield themselves from releasing the information now, citing “privacy”. The fact that the IRS and White House teamed up to share taxpayer information, and in at least one instance, used it to target American business owners while pushing their own economic agenda is thoroughly atrocious.
Update: Washington Free Beacon corroborates the Austan Goolsbee link, as the original FOIA request from “Change of Action” was specifically related to how the White House appeared to possess private taxpayer information of the Koch Brothers.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Last week, TIGTA revealed the existence of around 2500 documents “relating to investigations of the improper disclosure of confidential taxpayer information by the IRS to the White House.” December 1st was the deadline for the Department of Justice’s tax department to turn over those documents, as ordered by a judge. You can read more of that background story here.
The group involved in the FOIA request for documents is called “Cause of Action”, and they consider themselves a government watchdog of sorts. In an email last week from TIGTA on the matter, the department asked for more time (from Dec 1 to Dec 15) to go through the remaining 500 of the 2500 documents to determine if they were pertinent. This acknowledgment of the documents seemed promising that TIGTA would be forthcoming on the matter, as they have been pretty above board during the IRS Scandal in general.
However, yesterday TIGTA appeared to retreat from its openness by withholding the bulk of the documents. A letter from TIGTA counsel to the group noted that there were 2,509 pages of documents “potentially responsive to your request”, and of those, 2,043 were in fact responsive. However, TIGTA cited tax code and privacy as the reason not to disclose those documents, saying “All of the 2,043 pages of documents we have determined to be responsive were collected by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to the determination of possible liability under Title 26 of the United States Code. These pages consist of return information protected by 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and may not be disclosed absent an express statutory exception.”
The group will receive 466 documents on December 15 that apparently aren’t protected information. However, the sheer number of documents being withheld, which are acknowledged to a) be correspondence between the White House and IRS, and b) to contain protected “return information” reveal a stunning breach of propriety. The letter also contained a fairly lame notation that “Treasury Secretary Jack Lew is now looking into ‘potential liability’ that his tax aides broke laws in sharing taxpayer information with the White House.”
Forbes raised some interesting points on the matter: “A key question is whether any officials at the White House have ever asked anyone over at the IRS to transmit private taxpayer information to the White House in violation of law. Another question, regardless of whether the White House asked for any taxpayer information, is whether the IRS ever transmitted any.”
So is there a pattern of targeting from the White House? And will the hard drive containing the withheld documents suddenly crash?
Forbes sullenly concluded that “the data may seem unimportant, and hopefully it will turn out to be. Still, the privacy protections for taxpayer data held by the IRS are among the most sensitive parts of the tax law. That makes any alleged transgressions of these rules serious. It makes this topic arguably the worst part of the IRS scandal so far.”
Indeed. 2000+ documents linking the IRS and the White House, yet unavailable for review. Is there still “no smidgen of corruption”?
