by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
One of the burgeoning problems of opening the country back up is that many employers are struggling to properly restaff their businesses. It appears that many employees are refusing to go back to work because they prefer unemployment benefits. But workers are only entitled to these benefits if they cannot find work. They should legally lose the unemployment benefits if they refuse going back to work. Yet reporters covering this emerging situation seem ignorant of the concept.
I have been reading on far too many newspapers and websites regarding the inability of businesses (particularly restaurants) from all over the country unable to induce their employees to come back to work. The primary driver of this is the $600/week federal supplement to State unemployment insurance (“UI”) payments. This results, in many situations, in the employee being financially better off by being on unemployment than by working.
But this makes no sense. An employee is OBLIGATED to represent that he has no employment opportunity in order to get UI in the first place. Even asking his employer to not take him back is unethical, if not illegal. It is likewise unethical, if not illegal, for an employer to agree to such a request.
What were these writers thinking when they wrote these articles?
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
The WSJ had a thoughtful opinion piece a couple of days ago. The author wanted to “quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis”as a means to examine the efficacy of quick shutdown. Below are some key takeaways, and you can read the piece in full here.
“To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down.
We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown. The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)
No conclusions can be drawn about the states that sheltered quickly, because their death rates ran the full gamut, from 20 per million in Oregon to 360 in New York. This wide variation means that other variables—like population density or subway use—were more important. Our correlation coefficient for per-capita death rates vs. the population density was 44%. That suggests New York City might have benefited from its shutdown—but blindly copying New York’s policies in places with low Covid-19 death rates, such as my native Wisconsin, doesn’t make sense.”
The author then went on to examine Sweden’s policies (less restrictive than ours) and integrated those into his analysis:
“How did the Swedes do? They suffered 80 deaths per million 21 days after crossing the 1 per million threshold level. With 10 million people, Sweden’s death rate‒without a shutdown and massive unemployment‒is lower than that of the seven hardest-hit U.S. states—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey and New York—all of which, except Louisiana, shut down in three days or less.
We should cheer for Sweden to succeed, not ghoulishly bash them. They may prove that many aspects of the U.S. shutdown were mistakes—ineffective but economically devastating—and point the way to correcting them.”
Only time will tell what methodologies worked and what didn’t, but this is an important conversation to have, especially since the economy continues to worsen.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
It might not be so crazy after all for relatively young people who are going broke and having their lives torn out from under them to try to get back to normal in as careful a way as possible: going to gyms, salons, and other businesses. Might it be reasonable for some people to try it out to see if it can help with the infection rate? Can we trust people to be careful?
Some businesses such as FedEx, supermarkets, and medical practices are open and more are starting to or trying to open up, and yet they are not getting a lot of business because people are afraid, or told they need to be afraid. But why not open up and if people are willing to take the risk and practice social distancing and mask-wearing, we should let them.
The economy is horrific the way it is, and it just cannot remain like this. Many people’s lives are now devastated. For many, we have probably passed the point where the cure is worse than the disease.
We know by now that the virus does pose a risk of death, but we also know that in the vast majority of situations, the virus is more mild than it is lethal – especially for certain cohorts. People are well-educated enough to be able to make an informed decision as to what level of socializing they want to engage in for themselves. We should let them make that choice and start to get back to the business of doing business.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is leading the charge to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, essentially giving the government broad powers to regulate tech industry giants. This legislation undermines free speech and would be an egregious overreach of federal powers under the guise of “fairness.”
As Section 230 was construed, it’s aim “was to protect the openness of online culture while also protecting kids from online smut, and protecting the web at large from being overrun by defamatory, hateful, violent, or otherwise unwanted content.” The legal framework that was developed ensured that digital platforms are different entities from their users and are therefore not legally responsible for user content — good, bad, or otherwise. It was a way to protect First Amendment rights in an online world.
Hawley’s amendment would weaken the protections granted to social media companies by requiring them to first show regulators how they make decisions about content and then prove to those regulators that their moderation systems are neutral. Essentially, Hawley’s attempt to push back at various instances (real or imagined) of right-leaning users being treated unfairly or blocked by tech giants means that we have a Republican willing to not only institute severe regulatory behavior but also create anti-free speech monitors. Furthermore, facing possible legal repercussions from user content, companies would likely just ban or remove content others have flagged for any and all reason of being offended.
The antidote to bad speech is not good speech; it is free speech. Removing such free speech protections is an outrageous proposal, and putting the government in charge of deciding speech neutrality is even worse. Shame on Senator Hawley for attempting to regulate “fairness” and launching an assault on our First Amendment rights.
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.
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, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
When is a tax not a tax? When it’s a user fee — at least in New Jersey. That’s what one lawmaker is attempting in the legislature. A bill that would tax water based on use, in order to “ is fix a crumbling water delivery infrastructure in the state.”
The problem is that a tax already exists for that purpose. It was enacted in 1984, and is charged as a public utility franchise tax on water system operators of $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of water delivered to a consumer in order to “ensure clean drinking water in New Jersey.” This new tax/fee would be instituted on tap water, adding 10 cents for every 1,000 gallons of water a home uses.
Considering that the governor of New Jersey, Phil Murphy, just raised taxes roughly $2 billion, this new “user fee” is utterly ridiculous. New Jersey must be trying to catch up to New York, which already taxes water (albeit bottled, not tap.) New Jersey should kill this bill.
