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, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS
The Wall Street Journal published a ridiculous article, “The Gender Pay Gap Is a Lot Bigger Than You Think” that used every possible misconception, misstatement, and lie about the gender gap.
The author, Maddy Dychtwald, talks about an 18 cent pay gap differential, but instead of acknowledging that any differentials that exist relate to choices, the article only focuses on retirement funds.
There are many reasons for a pay gap – but it isn’t merely because of one’s gender. It has been shown time and again that many women have alternative career paths by choice: different jobs, amounts of time worked, lifestyle flexibility, and risks in occupation to name a few; therefore, any difference in the pay is a result of those choices and not some sort of discrimination. Dychtwald’s conclusion implies that a gender wage gap is “damaging to women” because women will likely have substantially less money saved and earned over her lifetime. Yet she doesn’t even consider that, for many women, working full time may be “damaging” to women who have alternative life goals — such as raising a family — and that amassing retirement funds might not be the ultimate end focus.
Wage gaps exist as a result of job choices, not gender. It is totally distressing that the Wall Street Journal’s typically consistent and balanced reporting on the concept of gender pay gap allowed this outrageous article to be published — without response.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
The Washington Post recently published a ridiculous article about deficit spending and entitlements from a group of former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Unsurprisingly, these economists scoff at the idea that entitlements are a cause for alarm, and predictably attack the Jobs and Tax bill that passed last year by President Trump. Of course, it’s to be expected, as the author-contributors were hand-picked from either only the Clinton or Obama administrations. Let’s take a closer look at some of their assertions:
“It is dishonest to single out entitlements for blame. The federal budget was in surplus from 1998 through 2001, (read: Pro-Clinton), “but large tax cuts and unfunded wars have been huge contributors to our current deficit problem” (read: anti-Bush). “The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending” (read: anti-Trump). “This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions” (read: anti-Trump).
What’s noticeably absent? Any mention of Obama. Where were these so-called economists when Obama went spending crazy? When the deficit doubled in the eight years of Obama’s administration? Deficit spending is an undisputed crisis and a large driver of that is, in fact, entitlements — a problem that has continued to be punted each year; in fact the latest SSA report, released June 5, plainly states that Medicare’s Trust Fund is set to run out in 8 years, and Social Security’s in 16. The Social Security program’s costs will exceed its income this year for the first time since 1982, forcing the program to dip into its nearly $3 trillion trust fund to cover benefits. But these numbers and projections are nothing new, so it is right for the Hoover Institute to continue to insist on reform in the face of years of inaction.
At a time when these very authors note that “the U.S. unemployment rate is down to 4.1 percent, and economic growth could well increase in 2018. Consumer and business confidence is high,” to then hold up Clinton as the pinnacle of economic excellence, spear Bush and Trump as reckless, and to completely ignore the profligate spending of Obama is disingenuous. The bias of the Washington Post shines through with this one.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TRUMP
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.
by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
Part of Obama’s terrible legacy was his frequent abusive use of Executive Order, even maintaining a “We Can’t Wait” page on the White House website. From changing student loan rules to immigration reform, Obama was rightly chided for making major policy changes without going through Congress.
It is therefore egregious that President Trump should decided to enact a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on imported aluminum products under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (the provision that allows additional tariffs when national security is affected).
When our largest importer of steel is Canada, followed by Brazil, South Korea and Mexico, it is abhorrent to invoke such a tariff under these pretenses. This particular Executive Order rivals Obama in making up lies to justify illegal executive action.
It also makes it possible for the next Democrat President to abuse presidential power by saying: “It’s not as big a whopper as Trump’s saying that tariffs on steel are needed to protect our nation’s security”. This is truly a terrible precedent.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues good results (a strong jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes DOWN? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was strong, one would assume the stock market would respond positively. But often that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do poorly? Wall Street professionals claim to understand it. They point out that the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When the economy is strong, the market has often already gone up in anticipation of the improving economy. But with the stronger economy, the Fed is likely to hike interest rates, threatening the strong growth going forward. Also, with interest rates rising, investors have the alternative of earning fixed, safe rates of return by buying bonds.
Though I do follow that logic, I do not agree with it. My strong belief is that as long as the economy is strong, with sound existing economic policies in place, I believe that financial growth and profitability will continue. And I would view downturns caused by positive financial results as a buying opportunity.
The economy has begun the road to renewed growth – finally getting rid of the Obama stagnation caused by increasing taxes, stifling regulation, and anti-business sentiment. It’s unreasonable to believe that the concern of interest rates should have more sway than a growing economy. Even if interest rates rise, does anyone really believe that a business will forego an expansion opportunity just because borrowing costs are 1 or 2 percentage points higher?
Of course, it would make sense for the stock market to become weaker if President Trump goes ahead with his economically ignorant tariff and anti-free-trade policies, as well as his economically stagnating immigration restrictions.
But as for now, the fluctuations are a confirmation of a stronger economy and the multiple opportunities afforded to investors.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAXES
The latest example of sin tax stupidity comes from Seattle, Washington. The new tax on sugary drinks began on January 1, 2018, as a means to “discourage consumers from buying sugary drinks while raising revenue for nutrition and education programs.” It’s a tax of 1.75 cents per ounce.
For example, it will now cost $2.14 for a 20-ounce soda, up from $1.79. The tax on a 12-pack of Coke cans will be $2.52. And a 2-liter bottle of Coke which used to sell at $2.79 is now $4. Diet and zero-calorie drinks are exempt.
“In addition to regular sodas like Coke, the tax applies to sport drinks such as Gatorade and energy drinks like Red Bull. The tax will apply to any nonalcoholic beverage or beverage concentrate that lists as an ingredient any caloric-based sweetener. For that reason, many juice-based drinks will be taxed.”
These taxes are absolutely ridiculous. It hurts both consumers and store owners alike. For example, “in Philadelphia, where a sweetened-beverage tax took effect this year, non-chain retailers have passed on 100 percent of the cost, according to preliminary research.” And for store owners who just happen to live on the edge of the city, shoppers are not changing their behavior — just their geography; they’ll shop across the border of Seattle, leaving those store owners now with products more expensive than their nearby counterparts across the city, which hurts their business.
These sin taxes are merely tax grabs for the government but do little towards changing the actual behavior they intend by the existence of the tax. The real effect is that people will shift their purchase to outside the city, which will eventually cause a tax decline for Seattle — as seen in currently in Philadelphia. Government does not seem to understand that people will actually go out of their way (literally!) to avoid paying illogical, egregious taxes.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, POLITICS, TAXES
In a continued tantrum against the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Governor Cuomo called the tax changes an “economic missile” as he unveiled his new budget proposal for the fiscal year. His solution? Raise more taxes mainly on businesses and restructure certain taxes so that New York gets its share of the pie.
One major change Cuomo has proposed is to eliminate the state income tax on wages for many New Yorkers; it would be replaced by a new payroll tax paid for by employers. This would be an disastrous burden for New York businesses who would conceivably have to cut wages in order to cover the cost of such a tax and deal with an excessive amount of increased paperwork.
Other ridiculous ideas include: a) a 2-cents-per-milligram tax on all opioids produced, paid for by the drug manufacturer; b) expanding the internet sales tax, a measure that has already failed twice; c) a 10-cents-per-milliliter tax on vapor products, paid for by the distributors; and d) a $120 “safety inspection fee” for motor coaches, ambulances, and other for-hire, for-profit cars that carry passengers subject to inspection by the DoT.
Just as egregious is Cuomo’s proposal to go after health insurers who stand to benefit from the tax reform bill. As some insurers could see up to a 40% reduction on their federal corporate taxes, Cuomo wants to pick their pockets by implementing a 14 percent surcharge on those gains in order to close the budget deficits.
For a governor who once emphasized his fiscal restraint, this budget shows how unhinged and out-of-touch with New Yorkers and New York businesses Cuomo has become.
