Even Europe is starting to wake up to Obama’s empty suit. The Weekly Standard reports that
Thomas Buch-Andersen, host of the Danish TV show Detektor, mocked President Obama’s political rhetoric in a recent episode….Buch-Andersen wonders aloud, “Maybe the copy key got stuck on the presidential speechwriter’s keyboard.”
You must watch the episode in its entirety.
Watching Meet the Press this past Sunday was a remarkable experience. Among the roundtable contributors were Peggy Noonan, Al Sharpton, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. The show was fairly enjoyable throughout most of the program – including a very civil discussion about women.
Then right before the close of the program, moderator David Gregory asks Al Sharpton about his recreation of the old Selma to Montgomery march (1965). Sharpton launches into a tirade about how we need to do this march again because our government is trying to disenfranchise millions of people.
REV. SHARPTON: The message is that with the new voter ID laws being proposed in over 30 states, the Brennan Institute says it will disenfranchise five million people. There has been no established reason to change the laws. There’s no widespread fraud that has been in any way documented. And we do, do not believe that we should have these millions of peoples disenfranchised. This is–has a disproportionate impact on young people, seniors and minorities. And immigration laws in Alabama are horrendous and we think they violate the civil rights of people. And we sought to dramatize, not just to commemorate 47 years ago, but to continue today to fight those issues.
Incredibly, this ludicrous and partisan comment goes unanswered. David Gregory just nods along and doesn’t even respond, and neither does Peggy Noonan. Gregory switches topics and wraps up the program with a quick analysis of the upcoming primary on Tuesday, March 13.
Watching this unfold made the whole program seem like a set-up. Everything was quite civil earlier on, so when Sharpton made his outrageous remark, no one batted an eye or refuted the absurdity. It allowed the program to pretty much end with Sharpton’s statement out there to the audience.
Therefore, I was jaded enough to not even be surprised when, the following morning (Monday), the Department of Justice announced the following:
The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
Should I even be surprised? Sharpton’s Meet the Press commentary seemed to coincide with the announcement of government decisions effecting voters in an election year. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have fair and free elections by requiring identification at the polls. We already require IDs for so many other things that to somehow cry discrimination when it comes to IDs for our sacred electoral process is nothing more than sheer political poppycock.
UPDATE: The United Nations is now investigating American laws, as the NAACP is presenting their case to the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva. Really, should we even be surprised?
As a CPA, it is frustrating to hear Social Security repeatedly being described as a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) system, which gives credence to something that is terribly incorrect. PAYGO is not a system at all; rather it is a method of reporting that hides earned realities, making it totally unacceptable to accounting professions, SEC, and virtually everybody.
The fallacy of calling it PAYGO is that, in reality, the cash includes everything we are getting in, while the cash out doesn’t include the responsibilities due to come. The cash out formula specifically excludes the trillions promised to existing workers in the future, (while their Social Security tax is being collected today). It doesn’t really describe, as part of the expenses being incurred this year, the amount of future retirement benefits being earned and promised.
In contrast, if you give an insurance company today $100,000 to pay you a retirement pension beginning when you retired at the age of 65, the insurance company (logically and legally), the insurance company would report this as an asset offset by a liability to provide $100,000 of payments in the future. The Social Security system, however, reports that as $100,000 of profits in the year received, while the obligation to account for and provide future benefits is incredibly ignored.
When the cash in is received, that money egregiously goes into the government’s general tax revenue account and not in any Social Security Fund (anymore). The Social Security Administration merely collects and records the gross Social Security tax receipts, while the net amount, after deductions, is sent to the IRS. Yet the gross amount recorded is the amount spent by the government, resulting in the staggering deficit we face today. Therefore, it is outrageous for anyone to say that accounting for the system can be done simply by looking at the cash in-cash out.
The biggest problem with this arrangement is that it puts the burden on the wrong people. We have a growing population of retiring taxpayers and the current generation is paying off the obligation the older generation never paid for. It is a Ponzi scheme in which, depending on how you play it, you manipulate who is paying whose obligation. Therefore, the PAYGO method doesn’t work because the government takes 100% of the money they receive and they do not put away; they need it to pay today’s debt to another taxpayer, while today’s payee is stuck holding the bag.
According to the Social Security trustees, in a report released this past fall, unfunded liabilities – those promises made to individuals solely in exchange for amounts they have already paid for – amount to an $18 trillion deficit. Social Security in its present form is unsustainable.
The term PAYGO is used for the lay person; cute semantics – but misleading at best, willfully dishonest at worst. It mischaracterizes the program for the political purpose of allowing politicians to declare that Social Security does not contribute to the deficit, and therefore, should not be overhauled in any major way. But until we agree to start recording Social Security (and Medicare) in budgets in actuarially sound way, we will never be able to honestly and effectively deal with their fiscal crises.
President Obama made it a priority of his busy day of not producing a workable budget or cutting the deficit to be supportive of the coed student who complained about the cost of her contraception. He calls and apologizes to her for her interaction with Rush Limbaugh. But our Commander-in-Chief has yet to call the family of slain soldier from Virginia, Army Sargeant Timothy John Conrad, who died February 23, following the Koran-burning incident (which Obama apologized on behalf of America for.)
Turns out that Ms. Fluke is not a 23-year old. According to the Gateway Pundit, she revealed on the Today Show with Matt Lauer that she is actually a 30 year-old. She is also a women’s rights activist, as well as the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Should we even be surprised anymore?
This is straight out of Ron Klain’s opinion piece on Bloomberg entitled “How to Defuse Political Peril of Surging Gas Prices”:
One idea might be a “pocketbook protection” plan, which would work as follows: If the average price of gas exceeds $4 a gallon, an additional, automatic payroll tax cut of 1 percent would kick in, as much as $50 per month, per person. The cut would stay in place for at least 90 days; it would disappear when the price fell below $4.00 per gallon.
There are three advantages to this approach. First, because the plan is of limited duration and is capped at $50 a month, its cost is relatively modest — about $5 billion a month, or $20 billion total, assuming the usual four-month gas-price surge. Second, because it isn’t a reduction in gas taxes, it doesn’t weaken any incentives for fuel conservation or efficiency: All workers get $50 to soften the blow of higher gas prices, but the less fuel they use, the more money they save. And third, the relief provides the greatest relative help to lower-income workers who need gas to commute and feel the price pinch the hardest.
Ripple Effect
Admittedly, by decoupling the tax relief from gas-tax collections, the pocketbook protection plan does give some benefit to workers who don’t drive. But any such windfall is modest, and even these non-drivers will need help dealing with the ripple effect of rising gas prices on the costs of other goods and services that are transportation-dependent.
The plan could be almost entirely paid for with a modest, no-loopholes surcharge on corporate taxes on profit derived from the higher gas prices. The administration would be able to avoid pejorative terms such as “windfall” or “excess” profit tax, because the tax is neither confiscatory nor punitive. With higher gas prices, oil companies will make record profit — and a partial surcharge will still leave that profit at record high levels. In other words, the plan isn’t vulnerable to suggestions of creeping, soak-the-rich redistribution. It would leave in place all incentives for oil companies to increase production, do more research and development, and explore alternative fuels. But a modest surcharge would help fund at least a partial pocketbook protection program to make sure the cost of the oil companies’ gain isn’t excessive pain for the rest of us.
So, instead of helping to lower gas prices via domestic oil projects like the Keystone Pipeline (which would also give jobs to Americans), one suggestion is to cut the payroll tax when gas prices are high (underfunding Social Security), and pay for it by a surcharge on corporate taxes. All in the name of “political peril”. Not economic peril — Obama’s political peril.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus bill was signed exactly by President Barack Obama on February 17th, 2009. We were told how this would help Americans go back to work while creating more jobs. Yep.
So much for Keynesian Economics.
Daniel Synder did an excellent summary the other day entitled “Economics: The ‘Science’ of Hubristic Hope”. It’s a must read regarding the current state of our economy. Perhaps while we are waiting in line to pump our $5 gas.
Well, isn’t this cozy. The Occupy movement, which began in September, has occupied several universities this spring. USA Today highlights a course being taught at Roosevelt University in Chicago (surprise?) called “Occupy Everywhere”. Similar classes on the history and/or significance of the Occupy cause are being offered at Brown University, USC-San Diego, and New York University. While Columbia could not get approval for such a class in time, it did offer college credit for participation in OWS.
This seems like the perfect opportunity to infiltrate academia just in time for the 2012 election. Don’t forget, the college vote overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. There’s even an occupycolleges.org website.
I wonder how many classes are being offered regarding a movement that will celebrate its 3rd birthday in a few days? Sparked by the Rick Santelli “rant” on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, the first Tea Party protests were organized on February 27, 2009. In contrast to the months-long Occupy movement — well noted for filth and crime — the Tea Party significantly impacted the 2010 Congressional elections merely a year later, and has continued to grow as an organized, grassroots group.
The desperation on the Left here is astounding, since most Americans have moved on from the Occupy Movement. At the ivory towers, however, I suppose the closest we could get to a Tea Party class is a course on the Constitution. If they offer one.
Update: Occupy is trying to get more organized. They have filed to form a PAC to help influence the upcoming election cycle
During the State of the Union, we heard President Obama talk repeatedly about fairness and taxes as he painted a picture of income inequality. The problem is that income inequality really is a myth, yet it is being perpetuated: the gap between rich and poor has never been higher.
The data used most frequently to substantiate this claim is a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report from October 2011. However, the glaring problem with this report is that it only covers the period from 1979 to 2007 — ending right before the Great Recession. Convenient?
So in November, Ron Schmidt of the University of Rochester School of Business Administration, did an analysis of the CBO data and compared it to IRS data during the same time period — but through the year 2009, the latest year for which IRS data was available. He found something very, very different. In a reported summary,
According to IRS data, which extend through 2009, the average nominal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) for filers with AGI of at least $500,000 declined by 17.8 percent from 2007 to 2009, and their average after-tax income declined by 19.9 percent. For those with AGI of less than $500,000, AGI declined by only 2.6 percent, and after-tax income declined by only 1.5 percent. These numbers certainly do not indicate an increase in income inequality.
In fact, there has been a marked decline in income inequality over the last decade. From 2000 to 2009, average AGI declined by 15.0 percent and average after-tax income declined by 11.0 percent for returns with AGI of at least $500,000. (Filers with an AGI of at least $500,000 represent 0.5 percent of all returns in both years, so this comparison is similar in spirit to the CBO report, which looks at the top 1 percent of households.) For all other returns, there were increases of 14.6 percent for average AGI and 17.3 percent for average after-tax income.
It revealed that income inequality is not only not at an all-time high, but also, due to the nature of economic and business cycles, it is relatively the same as it was twenty-five years ago.
The repeated calls for fairness last night reminds one of Margaret Thatcher’s famous speech in front of the House of Commons where she lambasted her opposition for suggesting that the gap between rich and poor had widened. The Prime Minister People responded that “people on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The honorable gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy”.
Liberal policy indeed is alive and well in America today. Thankfully, income inequality is not.
Though Obama may be pretending to draw a line in the sand between himself and the Republicans, he is really drawing a line for voters: Them vs The Rich Guy (millionaires and billionaires, anyone?) Setting up the narrative in the State of the Union allows Obama to pander to the electorate during this campaign season and relentlessly go after those who have proven to be successful as a source of increased tax revenue to cover his spending problem.
This is his solution for inequality. Fair?
While Mitt Romney’s tax rate has been calculated to be around 14%, there are a few unreported factors that account for the small percentage. Additionally, as will be detailed below, Mitt Romney paid taxes on $1 million + in income that does not exist. As a lifelong CPA, I was asked to review it for several media outlets. First, let me say that his return is standard, normal, well prepared, and detailed, with nothing unusual given the scope of his assets. That being said, his tax return is 203 pages. Roughly ½ – ¾ of the pages have nothing to do with tax calculation at all. They relate to the ridiculous and over burdensome compliance of several different natures. These include:
For instance, some of his tax shelters involve the use of foreign exchange trading. So, if you have foreign investments with foreign exchange trading, you risk the IRS saying you have characteristics of an abusive tax shelter. His are not; they all fall under broad categories, but in order to safeguard against any appearance of impropriety, he spent the majority of his return providing excessive documentation. However, these pages have nothing to do with his tax rate calculation.
Now, his Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) isn’t exactly as it seems. After you arrive at the AGI, you then subtract your deductions, and then you subtract your exemptions, and then, if you are liable for the AMT you adjust with your add-backs. Then, you have your general income tax rate. However, you are not quite done. One thing in particular with Romney’s return is the foreign tax credit, which is a credit you get for earning income abroad. How it works is that you pay foreign tax on foreign income and then you get a credit on your federal return for having already paid tax on that income. Romney’s credit is $130K. $750K of his income was earned abroad, and so he got credit for the $130K he already paid. This figure was then subtracted from his AGI which makes his AGI look smaller (hence a smaller percentage figure).
Additionally, his AGI was reduced by paying a lot of Massachusetts taxes. State taxes are deducted when calculating taxable income, but then, because of the AMT, some of it was added back. Also, as has been reported, Romney made a large amount of charitable contributions, which further reduced his tax rate. These contributions were made at his discretion – he tithed and then some. His AGI was reduced by that total amount. So, those are the key items that factored into his smaller percentage.
However, the most stunning information on his return is the fact that, due to inequities inherent our tax code, Romney paid taxes on more than a million dollars of income that didn’t exist. How is this possible? 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. For Romney, those component parts are 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 interest and expense. The net of all those you would think he’d pay taxes on, except for one thing.
From the income items, off comes the subtraction for interest. However, all of the other expenses that reduce profit – which, with hedge funds, include virtually all operation expenses to earn income, including fees to the operators – are required to be recorded as miscellaneous itemized deductions. You cannot deduct your share of expenses unless that amount exceeds 2% of your AGI. What’s worse, even if your expenses do exceed the threshold, and you are subject to the AMT you can’t deduct them at all. This inability to deduct necessary expenses incurred while generating that income means that Mitt Romney paid taxes on $1.017 million of income that does not exist.
As I have written on the subject before, regardless of whether a taxpayer is wealthy or not, the fact that the tax code has a floor for deducting the cost of earning income is an injustice that should be amended. You would think that someone would wonder about a tax law that requires a taxpayer to pay taxes on $1 million more of income than he actually earned. But alas, that is not the case.
After being interviewed by three agencies (Bloomberg, NYDaily News, and CBS Evening News), and extensively explaining the nuances with Romney’s AGI and this particular income item, none of the media chose to report it. Curious, I sent this information off to some folks with whom I have worked at Fox Business, but received no reply. I then communicated with a reporter from the Boston Globe, Ms. Beth Healy, who reported erroneous information on this subject in one of her articles, and offered to explain to her the misinformation. After this polite exchange of emails, she never followed up with the phone call she offered to make
. Only choosing to report the general figure of total income tax paid doesn’t effectively tell you the whole story. But perhaps the greater story here — more than the fact that Romney paid taxes on $ 1 million+ worth of income that doesn’t exist — is that five news agencies chose not to discuss how Romney paid “more than his fair share of taxes”. Perhaps doing so would challenge two prevalent narratives 1) hedge funds are bad and 2) the rich should pay more. Update: See how this story relates to the July 3 coordinated media smears on Romney’s finances by the WaPo and Politico
Yes, there is something terribly wrong with taxation in the hedge fund industry — but it is not the perceived evil that the defeated Baucus/Grassley bill was attempting to “fix”. According to them, the problem was that the hedge fund operators get part of their compensation from (relatively low-tax) capital gains income.
However, the proposed changes to “carried interest loopholes” is for political gain only, creating a problem that isn’t there, in order to solve some mythical inequality. However, all it does shift the benefit of the capital gains lost by the operators to the investors. That fixes nothing.
Instead, the real problem is that the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), as strictly enforced by the IRS, requires generally that hedge fund investors pay taxes on huge amounts of “income” that does not exist. This is derived from rules that require investors to pay tax on investment income while denying them an offset for the expenses that were incurred to generate that income.
It is simply not uncommon for hedge fund investors to pay tax rates of 70-100% or more on the hedge fund income they earn.
Yes, you read that correctly. 100% or more. In fact, in my practice I see a few clients every year forced to pay more taxes on an investment than that investment earned. True, it is a small percentage of people affected in any given year, but this does not mitigate the blatant unfairness. How does this injustice take place?
It follows from what is the most inequitable provision of the current tax code, namely, the severe limitation on the ability to deduct the necessary expenses incurred by a hedge fund operator in order to earn income: investment fees and expenses, accountant’s fees, legal fees for collecting a settlement, etc.
The tax code requires those expenses — which include virtually all operation expenses of private equity hedge funds, including fees to the operators — to be listed under the category of “miscellaneous deductions”.
However, these deductions may not be claimed until and unless they reach 2% of the taxpayer’s entire income. The upshot of this is that most taxpayers do not get to benefit from these deductions. To add further insult to injury, that even if investors have expenses which exceed the threshold, these expenses become addbacks for the dreaded alternative minimum tax (“AMT”).
This taxpayer abuse then certainly discourages investment and is a major source of inequity in the code. If Congress were ultimately concerned with reforming the hedge fund industry, this problem — the inability to deduct necessary expenses incurred while earning income — would be the right one for Congress to fix. Trying to interfere with and fix who gets the capital gain rate in a “carried interest” transaction was a worthless and meaningless endeavor.