It is virtually impossible to defend the part of the Internal Revenue Code that provides for a deduction for individuals who pay State and Local income taxes (“SALT”). The deduction is simply a subsidy for those states who levy high income taxes on their constituents. It actually incentivizes those states to levy high taxes, knowing that their constituents will have their federal taxes reduced as their state taxes go up. But this is patently unfair to constituents who live in low tax states, whose share of the federal tax burden therefore goes up.
Senator Chuck Schumer is leading the attack against proposed Tax Reform legislation that would eliminate the deduction for SALT. But since there is no rational argument to attack the proposal directly, he argues that the tax deduction is fair because NY (and other big blue states) send much more tax money to Washington than they get back.
But this is hypocrisy of the highest order. It is Schumer’s own preferred legislation that causes this imbalance. He has successfully advocated for policies that greatly increase the size of the federal Government (sends money to DC), that increase the welfare state (benefits going disproportionately to the poorer parts of the country), and substantially raise the tax burden on the wealthy (many of whom live in NY). So he created the problem and is now asking to be bailed out?
As I have repeated many times before, If Kansas ever gouged its farmers, or Texas ever gouged its oilmen, like New York legislators (like Schumer) gouge their financial community, they would be run out of town!
With President Trump proposing to eliminate the Federal tax deductions for state and local taxes, there has been an outcry from states that allow this deduction currently. The biggest criticism is that it creates “double taxation” because it forces individuals to pay two separate taxes – federal and State – on the same income- without giving any relief against the federal tax in recognition of the tax paid to the State. Without the deduction, Lawmakers warn that tax bills will rise substantially for their citizens. However, the truth is that these attacks are nothing more than an attempt to shift the focus away from affected states (like New York, New Jersey, and California) who are failing their fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers. They currently levy a very high level of taxation upon its citizens. The deduction is simply a subsidy that masks the egregious overspending of the state which creates the situation in which high taxation is necessary to feed the body politic. Why should the federal government have to subsidize some states at all? If the residents of these states think that high (some would say ludicrously wasteful) government spending paid for by very high taxes is the right way to run a state, it is certainly their right. But these residents also have no right to ask taxpayers of other states to subsidize them. And that is exactly what happens when the federal tax code enables some states to reduce their federal tax — via the state and local tax deduction — simply because they pay high taxes to their states. So yes, although the proposal will hurt some citizens, it is essentially and simply a reform that puts all taxpayers around the country on a level playing field, especially if it helps to reduce federal tax rates across the board. If lawmakers are so concerned with their affected taxpayers, they should aim to reduce the scope and size of their state governments and the wildly out of control spending that created it, instead of expecting other citizens to subsidize their irresponsibility.
Mayor DeBlasio released a new plan to add a “nearly 14 percent tax increase on high-income Big Apple residents” in order to raise money for various transportation projects. It is projected to raise $800 million/year and would be used to pay for subway repairs, bus system upgrades, and low-income train rides.
DeBlasio pitched a city income tax hike that “would raise the rate for individuals making more than $500,000 and married couples earning over $1 million from 3.876 percent to 4.41 percent.” That translates into ” an additional $2,700 levy on an individual earning $1 million a year, and an additional $8,000 on an individual earning $2 million.”
Using quintessential class warfare speech, DeBlasio invoked Obama’s favorite phrases about the “top 1 percent” who “can afford to do a bit more” arguing that “a transit system that works makes New York City’s economy strong and benefits us all.” What he forgot to mention is that New York City is already one of the top tax-heavy localities in the United States for high income earners, who fork over 50% of their income in combined city, state, and federal taxes. Ridiculous, money-grubbing schemes like these continue to be the reason why the wealthy continue their mass exodus from the area.
The hostile New York City business environment has claimed a new victim: the legendary China Fun restaurant, which has been in operation for 25 years. A letter on left on the door of the restaurant on January 3, 2017, outlined the reasons:
“The climate for small businesses like ours in New York have become such that it’s difficult to justify taking risks and running — nevermind starting — a legitimate mom-and-pop business,” read a letter posted by the owners in the restaurant’s front door.
“The state and municipal governments, with their punishing rules and regulations, seems to believe that we should be their cash machine to pay for all that ails us in society.”
For 25 years, China Fun was renowned for its peerless soup dumplings and piquant General Tso’s chicken.
According to the NY Daily News, “the endless paperwork and constant regulation that forced the shutdown accumulated over the years.” Other reasons included: the requirement to provide an on-site break room, minimum wage increases, health insurance, business insurance, and onerous Health Department rules and regulations.
The government essentially acknowledges the burdens it places on small businesses; “free compliance advisors are available for on-sight consultation aimed at helping small businesses comply with regulations” are a part of the Small Business First initiative.
So instead of making it easier for a business to start, operate, and grow a business, NYC makes it easier to comply with overbearing regulation, rules, and taxes. Businesses go into business to make a product or provide a service — not to respond to government red tape. The loss of China Fun is a microcosm of the entirely hostile, anti-business environment that plagues the NYC government.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) won a major court victory last week in a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Schneiderman. They demanded he disclose documents under New York’s Freedom of Information Law that outlines agreements he made with other attorneys general and allied non-profits regarding Attorneys General United for Clean Power – the coalition which subpoenaed CEI about our climate and energy work.
CEI’s General Counsel, Sam Kazman noted: “CEI’s court victory is a blow to the anti-free speech campaign led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. While the campaign by him and his cohorts that began in March continues against those who disagree with him on global warming, we are glad to see that it is being held subject to the basic laws of the land. By requiring Schneiderman to fully comply with our freedom of information request, the court is ensuring that agencies cannot use shortcuts as a means of skirting New York’s Freedom of Information law.”
While the litigation victory gained attention across several media platforms, my favorite headline came from The New York Post editorial yesterday, “The disclosure that could end Eric Schneiderman’s career.” Read the full editorial below:
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s witch hunt against supposed “climate-science deniers” became an even more embarrassing debacle late last month — and just might wind up ending his career.
A state judge ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank whose Freedom of Information request the AG had denied. That gave Schneiderman 30 days to cough up documents concerning his agreements with other states’ AGs, and with a group of green activists, about their joint persecution of ExxonMobile and other entities for supposed “climate fraud.”
CEI had been targeted by one of Schneiderman’s co-conspirators, the Virgin Islands AG, with legal demands that plainly aimed at suppressing free speech and scientific inquiry that the nonprofit sponsors.
The think tank’s lawyers believe the documents could show improper conduct by the AGs. If they do, Schneiderman faces serious trouble.
Oh, and New York taxpayers are out some more cash over the AG’s bid to dodge the Freedom of Information Law: The court ordered Schneiderman to cover CEI’s court costs, because his defense of his denial of the FOIL request was so transparently lame. (His brief merely quoted New York law, without even making any argument as to why it applied in this case.)
It all began in March, at a press conference where Schneiderman and 16 other AGs seemed to join Al Gore to announce joint operations against Exxon. In fact, more of the AGs were never on board — they’d shown up for a far less ambitious announcement.
And both of the two AGs who did mean to work with Schneiderman have now backed out, with the Virgin Islands AG completely abandoning his suits and the Massachusetts AG “suspending” her work until further notice.
Schneiderman, meanwhile, has dropped his initial claims that Exxon covered up scientific findings. He had to: The evidence is clear that for decades the company’s been publishing scientific results that fit neatly into the mainstream.
Instead, the AG is now (supposedly) chasing a legal case based on the company’s failure to report the value of its oil reserves in the way he thinks it should.
(Seriously: The charge is that Exxon is overvaluing its oil reserves, because it doesn’t note the risk that anti-warming laws might make the petroleum worthless. Hmm: How is that going to fly with “climate science skeptic” Donald Trump sitting in the White House?)
Schneiderman maintains he shouldn’t have to come clean because he signed confidentiality agreements with the other AGs. But his office won’t say whether it’s going to appeal the FOIL ruling or obey the judge’s order.
If he does keep refusing to comply with the Freedom of Information Law, you have to think he’s worried about what those documents will reveal.
The New York Post had an article recently regarding the continuous stream of New Yorkers leaving the state. An analysis found that “in 2014, 126,000 tax filers moved out of New York,” more than any other state in the nation. Also significantly, “The Empire State also lost the most “high earners,” who reported making more than $200,000 a year.”
This particular phenomenon has been going on for years, as I have written about in previous articles. But it seems like some people and groups want to downplay the exodus. The executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, Ron Deutsch, was sure to point out “that those who earn at least $1 million per year are more likely to stay put.”
It was a curious observation from the The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI), which purports to be “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and education organization committed to improving public policies and private practices to better the economic and social conditions of all New Yorkers.” It is curious because their observation proves our point. Of course those who earn more than one million a year would be more likely to stay put. They are the ones who can afford to be abused by the NY government – its outrageously high taxes, nanny state rules, and public education and other cronyism that creates ridiculously high prices- that is borne disproportionately by NY’s well-off. The super-wealthy put up with it because they don’t want to give up their luxuries — the theater, the restaurants, museums and attractions – and they have the super-wealth to afford it. That $200,000 – $1 million threshold? It’s really New York’s well off upper middle class, the backbone of the City. They refuse to tolerate the burden of staying, and vote with their feet by leaving.
If Texas ever did to their oilmen, or Kansas ever did to their farmers, what New York does to its well off financial community, they’d be run out of town on a rail!
I recently attended a dinner in NYC and sat next to a very nice professor from NYU. He was non-tenured, and have moved to the United States from Europe a decade ago. Because he was somewhat low-level, he felt he could not speak out any anything controversial or conservative, which is anathema to the idea of a university being a free exchange of ideas. What’s more, this professor relayed how he had gotten an email from senior level administration at NYU after Trump was elected; the email pretty much stated how terrible it was the Trump one. This type of email from a high-ranking NYU official, could only be sent to faculty and staff if such positions were overwhelmingly singular-minded (in this case liberal) so that there would be little-to-no blowback for articulating such a position on a controversial matter. Unfortunately, this anecdote represents a mindset that seems to be infecting NYU; two other, recent incidents support this. First, NYU decided to cancel a talk given by Milo Yiannopoulos that was scheduled this month. Mr. Yiannopoulos is the tech editor of the Breitbart website, and “has been criticized for his comments on Muslims, Black Lives Matter activists and feminists.” NYU’s official position cited “security concerns,” because the talk “was going to be held near student groups at NYU’s Manhattan campus ‘that are subjects of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ attacks.’” Of course, the real reason for this is that Yiannopoulos is popular among the alt-right, and giving him a platform to espouse his views — as controversial as some may find — would be bad. Better to silence someone with whom you disagree instead of mutual engaging and exchanging of viewpoints.
NYU has extended this mindset to one of its own professors. On October 30, “An NYU professor crusading against political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his ‘incivility.’” Michael Rechtenwald was a professor of liberal studies, and was put on paid leave for the rest of the semester. According to the NY Post, “Rectenwald launched an undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings” policing Halloween costumes and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture.
Once his identity became known, a “12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans, published a letter to the editor:
“As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas. We seek to create a dynamic community that values full participation. Such efforts are not the ‘destruction of academic integrity’ Professor Rectenwald suggests, but rather what make possible our program’s approach to global studies.”
The same day the letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, Rectenwald described how, “They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health. They suggested my voicing these opinions was a cry for help.”
Apparently, expressing an opinion counter to the prevailing liberal cultural at NYU will silence you (if you are a professor), cancel you (if you are a speaker), or remove you and claim you have a mental health crisis (if you are an undercover and outspoken critic). This is what passes for academia these days, and it is truly reprehensible.
The New York Post had an article the other day regarding the continuous stream of New Yorkers leaving the state. An analysis found that “in 2014, 126,000 tax filers moved out of New York,” more than any other state in the nation. Also significantly, “The Empire State also lost the most “high earners,” who reported making more than $200,000 a year.”
This particular phenomenon has been going on for years, as I have written about in previous articles. But it seems like some people are groups want to downplay the exodus. The executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, Ron Deutsch, was sure to point out “that those who earn at least $1 million per year are more likely to stay put.”
It was a curious observation from the The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI), which purports to be “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and education organization committed to improving public policies and private practices to better the economic and social conditions of all New Yorkers.”
Now, let’s stop for a minute. Of course those who earn more than one million a year would be more likely to stay put. They are the ones who can afford to be abused by the government and put up with it because they don’t want to give up their luxuries — the theater, the restaurants, all that New York has to offer. They can afford to stay. That $200,000 threshold? It’s really New York’s middle class, the backbone of the city. Because of the extremely high cost of living, they can’t afford to stay and put up with abuse.
If Texas ever did to their oilmen what New York does to its taxpayers, they’d be run out on a rail.
We’ve all seen the video which raises new questions about the health status of Hillary Clinton. I’ve largely left these questions alone because I try to avoid reckless speculation. However, the video does raise some new questions:
The Hillary press team was largely silent for 90 minutes after the video. Later, it emerged that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. “But just after 5 p.m., a campaign official said Mrs. Clinton’s physician, Dr. Lisa R. Bardack, had examined the candidate at her home in Chappaqua, and Dr. Bardack said in a statement that Mrs. Clinton was “rehydrated and recovering nicely.”
“Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies,” Dr. Bardack’s statement said, adding that on Friday morning, after a prolonged cough, Mrs. Clinton was given a diagnosis of pneumonia. “She was put on antibiotics, and advised to rest and modify her schedule,” Dr. Bardack added. “At this morning’s event, she became overheated and dehydrated.”
Now, if she was indeed diagnosed with pnuemonia, why was she subsequently at a fundraiser with Barbra Streisand later that same evening? This is the same incident that Hillary used the now famous term “basket of deplorables” in reference to Trump supporters.
According to reports on the event, “tickets for the gala start at $1,200, with limited availability, and go as high as $250,000. Donors who raise six figures get a meet-and-greet reception with Clinton.”
Does this mean that Clinton engaged in a private meet-and-greet while sick with pneumonia, and didn’t disclose her illness? Was she contagious then? How does one get told to “rest and modify her schedule” and then proceed to a high dollar fundraiser.
“Hillary Clinton will meet with a bipartisan group of former national security officials on Friday, a group that includes ousted former CIA Director David Petraeus and former George W. Bush Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff.”
According to a tweet by MSNBC captured by The Gateway Pundit that Friday, at 5:13pm in New York, MSNBC urged its followers to “Watch Live: Tune in to @MSNBC to watch Hillary Clinton speak after attending a major national security meeting.”
Watch Live: Tune in to @MSNBC to watch Hillary Clinton speak after attending a major national security meeting. pic.twitter.com/RzX9YRiWs4
This briefing was post-meeting, and pre-fundraiser. Did she notify any of the distinguished guests at the meeting that she was sick with pneumonia? The press at the briefing? Anyone she may have come in contact with? If not, why not?
She’s either lying about actually having pneumonia or she’s did not disclose a serious, and potentially contagious illness with the hundreds of people with whom she came in contact on Friday: national security folks, press, donors, supporters. Which one is more deplorable?
On Wednesday, January 6, Mayor DeBlasio proclaimed a $15/hr minimum wage for the public workers in New York City. The cost for such a plan is expected to be more than $200 million over the next five years. Both De Blasio and Gov. Cuomo seem intent on playing the role of wage-crusader during their respective terms — but only for some New Yorkers.
Just like DeBlasio, Gov. Cuomo announced in early January that “he would provide a $15-an-hour minimum wage to some 28,000 state university workers.” And last November, “the governor made New York the first state to set a $15 minimum wage for public employees; he also took steps to secure $15 an hour for workers at fast-food chain restaurants.” DeBlasio, too, has sought other ways to provide more generous benefits. Late in December, he announced that NYC “would begin offering six weeks of paid parental leave to 20,000 city employees.”
The problem is that these minimum wage hikes not only add to the budget woes, it also creates inequalities between the public and private sector (except for fast-food workers). How is it good for New York that a McDonald’s open next door to a pizza shop with a $5 minimum wage difference? And how can Cuomo attract more businesses to New York state with costs that are already the highest in the entire country — when he is going to make them even higher?
Here in New York City, a minimum wage hike for public workers would mean that New York City will pay more for its labor than it currently has calculated to pay, in order to produce the exact same product or services. Looked at it another way, to then keep to the operating budget, NYC will get less goods and services for the taxes it receives. This would result in a bigger budget deficit — because of having to spend more overall to maintain the current goods and services.
Minimum wage hikes no one anyone except the pockets of the public sector workers, while pushing the budget on an even more unsustainable trajectory. The rest of the taxpayers will be expect to either 1) have yet another tax increase in the near future or 2) see diminished services. Neither of these scenarios benefits New Yorkers.
