Going Galt: Tax hikes have consequences

[Jolie Rouge]

Going Galt : Tax hikes have consequences
March 2, 2009 06:22 PM

There’s a new report on ABCNews.com about how upper-income business owners are looking for ways to reduce their earnings to deny the government their tax dollars. This is exactly what Dr. Helen was talking about in October and on our PJTV panel this weekend – the producers of this country choosing to “Go Galt.” It’s the sentiment you saw in the “Atlas Will Shrug” sign at the Denver anti-pork rally two weeks ago and at many of the Tea Party protests. And it’s the sentiment you see in the rise of Ayn Rand novel sales.

Tax hikes have consequences. Incentives matter. Only self-deluded wealth redistributors living in la-la-land believe otherwise.

Read: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6975547&page=1


President Barack Obama’s tax proposal which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more — has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it’s just by a dollar.

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama’s tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

“We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00,” she said.

“We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama’s tax plan,” she added. “Why kill yourself working if you’re going to give it all away to people who aren’t working as hard?”

***

The nationwide Tax Day Tea Party is April 15. I’ve just signed on as a sponsor. Make your voices heard.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/02/going-galt-tax-hikes-have-consequences/




Priceless:
Tax cheat Treasury Secretary to chase after
…tax cheats


Trying

To

Type

Between

Snorts


Sides

Splitting


Fresh from the AP wire: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iv5RvenEJnrWvRkseVS8Hq0LwQJQD96MN08G1


Geithner: Obama to fight international tax dodgers
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's Treasury secretary says the administration will unveil a series of rules and measures in the coming months to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that Obama will propose legislation to limit U.S. companies' ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation in the U.S. He also said the administration will try to limit wealthy Americans' ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation.

He did not immediately provide details.


No, of course not. “Immediately providing details” is not something Obama Cabinet members do.

President Obama likes the idea of globalization of government, but apparently not the globalization of business.

Taxation has consequences.


...to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes.


... propose legislation to limit U.S. companies’ ability to shelter foreign earnings...

Which is it? International companies or U.S. companies?

Some corporate inversions are tax driven. Some reflect the changing economy and face of many Fortune 500-esque companies.

One can only speculate what this means now since Geithner never has any details, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were dusting off their attacks on corporate inversions (with no consideration for the fact that they helped drive many of those companies to that solution).

I suggest Inspector Clouseau be placed in charge of the investigations... to begin audit all democrat elected officials; his staff proves 30 - 40% don’t pay until caught.

[SurferGirl]

I know that my hubby and I decided to quite working any overtime.
It's our small way of protesting.

I noticed one of the recent tax changes they want to eliminate the charitable contribution deduction. I like to give to the charitable organizations that I like and I will still give at least 10 percent regardless but to eliminate this deduction is so unfair. Especially with the fact so much more will be needed because of the economy getting worse.

[gmyers]

I figured thats what would happen. Whats scary is they have to have tax money. I bet he'll change it and charge more taxes to everybody if the rich people do that.

[SurferGirl]

Just do what the politicians do and don't pay it.
We won't have any money to pay taxes anyway after we pay our power bills.

[Jolie Rouge]

An excellent wealth producer’s manifesto from Laura at Pursuing Holiness. http://pursuingholiness.com/2009/03/going-john-galt/


Like Robert Stacey McCain, my frustration with the “moderates” who voted for Obama in the desperate hope that he was not what the evidence - and by evidence, I mean his words, his associates, and even his extremely limited legislative track record - clearly proclaimed him to be: a far left Chicago thug politician whose goal was to move us into a more socialist state. David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Doug Kmiec… you led the RINO cheerleading squad that helped this man become our President. Serious scrutiny of Obama’s admittedly scant record would have told you all you need to know.

Now people begin to feel sorry, and are deservedly mocked. But in the meantime, we’re going further and further down the socialist rabbit hole, and taxpayers like me who are net contributors to the federal government - instead of the 60% of taxpayers who receive more in government services than they put in - are going John Galt.

http://pursuingholiness.com/wp-content/uploads/whopaystaxes.gif

http://pursuingholiness.com/wp-content/uploads/whopaystaxes.gif

Gas lines, unemployment, inflation, problems with terrorists… we have all this and more to look forward to, right down to the guy in the Oval Office lecturing us that we can’t keep our homes at the temperature we like. At least Carter had the decency to put on a sweater and give the appearance of suffering right along with the rest of us. President Obama can’t even do that. These things are going to happen eventually anyway because the 40% cannot carry the rest of the country, nor should a moral society expect us to do so. My goal is to not extend the misery; to hasten the inevitable crash so we can recover quickly.

Do I want Obama to fail? Aren’t I, as a Christian, required to pray for our president? I do pray for him. But I don’t pray for his success, where his success means implementing policies which harm the country’s security, kill babies, increase poverty, and decrease freedom. The Alinskyite game playing is pathetic, trying to divide us with “have you beat your wife lately?” questions designed to “catch” conservatives in being “disloyal” to the President. Are you now, or have you ever been, a fan of Rush Limbaugh? Grow up! I’m not hoping for economic failure. I’m experiencing economic failure, and I’m hoping to return to economic success.

As the natural consequences of these disastrous polices - foreign policy based on magical thinking, energy policy designed to increase costs and cause shortages, economic policy that has already stolen big chunks out of people’s retirement funds by sending the stock market back to Clinton administration levels, with no floor in sight - the country is going to suffer. I welcome that, to the extent necessary to cause people to re-think their attitudes and comprehend the results of their entitlement mentality. By going John Galt - reducing my income to the point that I no longer subsidize anyone else via government imposed wealth transfers - I hope to hasten the inevitable collapse. The H.E.N.R.Y.’s feel the same way; people who are in the dreaded eeevil, mean capitalist pig $250,000 bracket are cutting back on their productivity. As they should - where does society get the right to enslave these people? The faster the 40% opts out, the sooner the collapse, and the sooner we can correct the situation.

Think of it as praying the alcoholic in your family will hit rock bottom sooner, rather than later. It’s time to stop enabling the entitlement mentality. It’s time to let go of our co-dependency and desire to be liked. It’s time for an intervention. It’s time to go John Galt.




Related: A great catch from Dr. Helen on how the MSM treats rational business owners as tax “dodgers” while tax cheat Tim Geithner gets a pass. http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2009/03/dodging-is-for-tim-geithner-not-for.html

I love the negative spin by ABC news when they pose a question to readers about Obama's proposed tax increase on those making over $250,000 : http://abcnews.go.com/Business/popup?id=6977870&POLL395=800000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000



Lawyers, dentists and entrepreneurs are among some high-earning professionals brainstorming ways to decrease their pay to dodge [my emphasis] a proposed tax increase on incomes over $250,000.

Is it fair for people to reduce high salaries to sidestep President Obama's tax proposal?

Last time I looked, involuntary servitude was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment (but maybe not for long!). No one in the US (yet) can be forced to work just so they can keep paying money to the government and programs they may not want to support. I remember reading an article about an artist who decided to cut back on his hours and live on almost nothing because he did not want to pay taxes to support the war in Iraq under Bush. The article never questioned whether what this man was doing was "fair" or constituted "dodging" taxes.

Now the tables are turned and there are Americans who do not want to support Obama's socialist agenda or who simply do not want to work more for less and less money.

It is their right. We must fight to keep it that way.[/quote]

[quote]Is it fair for people to reduce high salaries to sidestep President Obama's tax proposal?


No. The rich have had too many tax breaks.
They should be ashamed for finagling the system. (551)

No. I have to pay high taxes and so should that
high-income bracket. They can afford it. (268)

Yes. I also would find ways to decrease my salary to avoid taxes. (5,934)

Yes. Why should ordinary folks, even those making $250K,
pay when big corporations get bailed out. (2,183)

Total Vote: 8,936[quote]



Read the comments that follow the article ....

[SurferGirl]

When we think about higher taxes on corporations we need to remember that corporations pass their expenses on to the consumers. So higher taxes mean higher prices. It also means more jobs leaving the country.

I'll make some more comments on how I feel that obama economics will ruin our economy tomorrow but I'm tired and have to get up extra early tomorrow.

[Jolie Rouge]

Newsflash: Wonderboy Treasury Secretary is in over his head

They said he was uniquely qualified. A wunderkind. The Man with the Plan. Too big to fail.

Now we learn from the on-the-ball MSM that tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is flailing about and in over his head.

Who’s shocked?


For five weeks, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has battled the worst economic crisis in generations with no key deputies in place. That’s made for a rocky debut for the man President Barack Obama put in charge of addressing the financial crisis.

With an awkward first television appearance, a bank rescue plan that lacked promised specifics and two restructured bailouts that raised taxpayer risk, Geithner has failed to calm financial markets desperate for answers.

Critics say part of the problem is that Geithner is flying solo: Not one of his top 17 deputies has been named, let alone confirmed. And without senior leadership, lower-level Treasury employees can’t make decisions or represent the government in crucial conversations with banks and others.

As Geithner strives to address the financial crisis, advance Obama’s agenda and work with foreign leaders to stave off economic disaster, he’s assembled a 50-person “shadow cabinet” of would-be appointees. Those people have received hall passes and can advise Geithner, but they lack any authority.

“Everyone would think it’s a travesty if the Defense Department didn’t have a lot of their people in place, because you’re in a crisis fighting a couple of wars,” said Tony Fratto, who was a Treasury spokesman under President George W. Bush. “But Tim Geithner is fighting wars on a few fronts himself, and he doesn’t have the generals there to help him.”

So, he’s chasing after international tax avoiders by himself.

And now, the tax cheat is assailing oil and gas companies for taking advantage of the legal tax loopholes. No wonder he can’t get anyone to staff up underneath him. Everything he does is a punchline:


U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday.

It was one of the sharpest attacks yet on the oil and gas industry by a top Obama administration official, reinforcing the White House stance that new U.S. energy policy will focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and rely less on traditional fossil fuels like oil as America tackles climate change.

“We don’t believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don’t think that’s good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country,” Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House’s proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

The Obama administration’s budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.

This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill..

The NYPost editorial board chuckles:


... here was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, boldly testifying Tuesday before Rep. Charlie Rangel’s Ways & Means Committee - promising that the Obama administration intends to propose “a series of legislative and enforcement measures to reduce . . . tax evasion and avoidance.”

Did he look Chairman Rangel in the eye when he said this?

Can he look himself in the eye at the shaving mirror each morning?

A crackdown on “tax evasion and avoidance”? Oh, the irony.

[anothersta]

I could do a better job than Geitner and I know how to use Turbo Tax!

And now we have National healthcare in the name of the economy. Guess what? Healthcare stocks are tanking now. Doesn't help when the gov goes to them and says "I don't care what we've negotiated with you. You will be giving us a 10% discount"

What other CRAMDOWNS will the gov force down business' throats?

And yes, when Geitner was talking about catching tax evaders, I needed my barf bucket. This is all absolutely ridiculous!!

[Jolie Rouge]

Timothy Geithner, alone and working night and day

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is practically alone on the job, working night and day to cope with the worst economic downturn in decades.

Of the 15 key Treasury Department positions that require Senate confirmation, only one has been filled. Stuart Levey, a leftover from the previous administration, who as under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, is not central to the crisis management however.

Unemployment figures which revealed Friday that 651,000 jobs were lost in February, showed the recession is running ever deeper, but Geithner, who started work in late January, has no deputy secretary, no under secretaries for international affairs and no deputy under secretaries.

Annette Nazareth, who had been expected to be chosen as deputy secretary -- Geithner's top aide -- has withdrawn her name, the Wall Street Journal reported in its online edition, citing people familiar with the matter.

The former Security Exchange Commission head "withdrew in large part because of the long vetting process" President Barack Obama has put in place to choose members of his government, the daily said.

Geithner's choice for undersecretary for international affairs, Caroline Atkinson, also took her name out of the running, only weeks ahead of the April 2, Group of 20 developed and developing nations summit in London.

To help Geithner on international financial matters, Treasury has provisionally hired Ted Truman, an economist at the Peterson Institute of International Economics in Washington, according to a Treasury official.

Truman was Geithner's assistant at Treasury when he served as under secretary for international affairs in the late 1990s.

The 47-year-old Geithner, a former head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was involved with the economic recovery efforts by President George W. Bush, but some experts think his plate may be too full this time.

President Barack Obama's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, told CNBC on Friday that Geithner "is putting together a team as fast as he can ... work is going on night and day."

Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman and now head of the newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board, told a February 26 Congress hearing that it was "shameful" Geithner had no assistants.

"He shouldn't be sitting there alone ... it really is an unfortunate situation."

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing Thursday, Senator Tom Carper told Geithner, "obviously, you need help," eliciting from the treasury secretary that he saw his family "less than I would like."

Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker denied there were "vetting problems or delays in the process" for nominees at his department.

"With more than 50 political appointees already hard at work, the department is ahead of staffing levels from previous administrations" in the same time frame, he said, highlighting the "unprecedented level of action to strengthen our economy" already taken by the Treasury Department.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.4b23a31c3686bc071c5b2ae66b18d1d 8.601&show_article=1

[Jolie Rouge]

Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!”
By Michelle Malkin • March 9, 2009 01:23 PM

It is arrogance like this that has prompted thousands of taxpayers across the country to take to the streets:

A Chicago taxpayer went to his 22nd Ward alderman, Ricardo Munoz, to protest the Democrat’s support for tax-increment financing. (I reported years ago on how these “public-private partnership” scams siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.) The constituent wants to present Alderman Munoz with a petition. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=702

Munoz physically shoves the voter and yells: “Get the f**k out of my office!” (Hat tip - Jim Hoft). http://flyingdebris.blogspot.com/2009/03/another-chicago-democrat-is-rod.html


Send Ricardo Munoz a teabag!

• Ward Office: 2500 S. St Louis
Chicago, IL 60623

• Ward Phone: 773-762-1771

• E-Mail: [email protected]

• City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300 Chicago, IL 60602

• City Hall Phone: 312-744-9491





Move over, Charlie “Mind Your Goddamned Business” Rangel. You’ve got company:
Tax cheat Rangel caught on tape:
“Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?”



Our intrepid Hot Air TV special correspondent Jason Mattera is back on Capitol Hill! You’ve watched him corner smear merchants Jack Murtha and John Kerry, ask William “Cold Cash” Jefferson for bribe-freezing tips, and roam the Democrat National Convention in an orange Gitmo suit exposing far Left insanity. This time he catches tax cheat Charlie Rangel and confronts him about his mounting ethical and financial scandals.

Charlie Rangel’s message for Jason - and for all you bothersome taxpayers wondering about his shady rental property deals, publicly-subsidized Cadillac, and unpaid taxes:


“Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?”

Because, you damned corruptocrat, you are a servant of the public — not the other way around.

[Jolie Rouge]

Geithner: Can’t get taxes straight, can’t get dates straight…

Can he get anything straight? TurboTax failed him. So, apparently, did Outlook calendar.

Hapless Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner claims he didn’t find out about the AIG bonus issue until March 10. This was contradicted by AIG president Edward Liddy’s testimony before Congress earlier this week. Liddy was right. Geithner was wrong. And it’s all on videotape. DealBlog this morning referenced a House hearing on March 3 in which Geithner was directly questioned about the specific bosnues http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/many-in-government-knew-weeks-ago-about-aig-bonuses/ a full week before Geithner claims he was made aware of the impending controversy.

C-SPAN archives has the clip (also now on YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65VlHPJihAM

And here’s the transcript now circulating on the Hill:


Full Question From House Ways And Means Committee Hearing, 3/3/09:

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY): “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the committee, Mr. Geithner, and thank you for your responses so far. It never ceases to amaze me the level of apparent amnesia some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had about how we got to this problem in the first place, and I thank you for answering Mr. Heller’s question in particular.

“By the line of questioning, you’re almost led to believe that because of a last month and a few days of a presidency we had the problem we have today, and thank you for setting the record straight. This didn’t happen overnight. This took eight years in the making of stagnant, at best, growth. But yesterday, Mr. Secretary, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve announced a new fourth plan to rescue troubled financial services giant AIG. I do agree that AIG’s sustainability is the lynchpin for some of our recovery efforts, and it’s important for the federal government to work to keep it afloat. However, I must demand that AIG increase the accountability and transparency, something that was not done during the previous administration.

“For example, just last month, AIG paid 343 employees of AIG FP — their Financial Products division that created the financial hole that AIG is in, and in turn a multibillion-dollar bill for American taxpayers — $56 million in bonuses and are slated to pay an additional $162 million in bonuses to 393 participants in the coming weeks. And there’s more. Further bonus payments totaling approximately 230 million (dollars) are due to 407 participants at AIG’s Financial Products division in March 2010.

“This makes no sense to my constituency. And I’m not here to bash compensation — we can go a little overboard as well — but this company claims to be on the brink of disaster and it’s handing out bonuses. I would like to work with you in structuring tough, commonsense compensation limits at AIG and this new government loan, which would include voiding these bonuses to AIG FP employees as well as claw back $56 million in bonuses already paid to AIG FP employees December 2008 and 2009, some of whom are not even American citizens but who are living large on taxpayer funds. Can you please share with us, this committee, your thoughts on taking these actions.”

Secretary Geithner: “Congressman, thank you. I just want to point out that compensation practice across the financial services industry over the last years and decades just got out of whack with basic fundamentals, and people were paid for risks that weren’t captured in compensation, and part of what we do to make sure this kind of crisis doesn’t happen in the future is to change those basic incentives, and there’s going to be a role for government in doing that.

“Now, it’s very important that we make sure that we’re providing exceptional assistance to these firms, that that assistance is going, again, to achieve the objectives of these programs, not to reward the kind of executives that got us in this mess. I’m deeply committed to that objective.

“The president laid out some very comprehensive conditions in his proposals last month. Congress passed as part of the recovery act a set of additional provisions. We are now in the process of designing regulations, guidelines to apply those provisions and we’re going to be as careful and responsive as we can to the concerns you have, so many Americans have about how these resources have been used. And I just want to say that the judgments made by these boards of directors and senior executives across parts of the financial have just caused a lot of damage to public confidence and the quality of their judgment, and they have a deep responsibility and obligation to make more careful judgments going forward.

“But we’re not going to be able to depend on them to do it. We’re going to make sure that there’s conditions that come with our assistance to assure that. So we’re going to figure out how to apply these new provisions in a way that’s as carefully designed as possible. Obviously, we want these businesses — we want to achieve the objectives of what we did in the IT. We want them to be able to run their business and restructure so that we’re in a better position going forward and that’s going to — that’s why this is sort of hard to do. But we’re going to be very careful in doing it and very much share your concern.”

How much longer does Geithner “take full responsibility” for his failings without suffering any consequences?


Side note: One of the congressional offices circulating the info comes from a GOP lawmaker who voted FOR the cover-their-backside confiscatory AIG bonus tax yesterday. :rules:

[Jolie Rouge]

Treasury Department tax cheat Tim Geithner already announced this knee-slapper initiative in March. The White House follows up today with the details of the crackdown on corporate tax cheats: http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/04/news/economy/obama_corporate_tax_proposals/?postversion=2009050411


President Obama on Monday spelled out his plans to close corporate tax loopholes on U.S. multinational corporations and crack down on overseas tax havens.

The goal is to help create new jobs in the United States and make the tax code fairer.

But tax policy experts and corporate lobbyists say such measures, unless accompanied by a reduction in the corporate tax rate, will push more companies to move their operations — and jobs - overseas to more tax friendly countries.

The White House and Treasury Department laid out three proposals that they say will eliminate the current tax advantages U.S.-based multinationals get for investing and creating jobs abroad.



***

Obama says he can squeeze $210 billion from multinationals. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090504/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_taxes;_ylt=Ani37p2r1KW_LB_mlO5FsXWs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTJmZzNhZGh2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTA0L3VzX2 9iYW1hX3RheGVzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0 b3J5BHNsawNvYmFtYWFubm91bmM-



Tech firms overwhelmingly supported Obama.
Now, they are reaping what they have sown: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_12275201?source=yfinance


In the tech industry’s first major disagreement with the Obama administration, Silicon Valley companies are voicing alarm about a proposal that could require corporations to pay billions of dollars in U.S. taxes on foreign earnings.

The administration wants to change a long-standing law that allows American companies to defer paying these taxes as long as the funds are kept overseas. That could have a big impact on a number of U.S. corporations, especially tech giants such as Hewlett-Packard, Cisco Systems and Oracle, which report that overseas markets account for half or more of their sales.

“It’s probably our biggest concern right now. Certainly, it’s the biggest issue where we disagree with the Obama administration,” said Ralph Hellmann, senior vice president of the Information Technology Industry Council, an industry lobbying group.

“On a Richter scale of 1 to 10, this is about a 20,” added Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who is leading a delegation of valley executives to Washington this week. They plan to discuss the deferral proposal and several other issues with federal officials and congressional leaders.

Currently, many big companies avoid paying U.S. taxes on revenue from foreign subsidiaries by reinvesting the money overseas, either by parking cash in various accounts or by plowing it back into foreign operations.

Without the deferral provision, for example, Google might have been required to pay an additional $1 billion last year on a tax bill that amounted to roughly $1.6 billion, according to a regulatory filing made by the company.

[Bahet]

The tax cheat is going to write policy to crack down on tax cheats with the help of another tax cheat. We're all doomed.

[atprm]

the tax cheat is going to write policy to crack down on tax cheats with the help of another tax cheat. We're all doomed.

lol!

[Jolie Rouge]

Billionaire Tom Golisano, founder of Paychex, is leaving high-taxing, entrepreneur-undermining New York for Florida. He penned a kiss-off in the NYPost today: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05202009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/adios__new_york_170074.htm


Politicians like to talk about incentives — for businesses to relocate, for example, or to get folks to buy local. After reviewing the new budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immedi ately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need do only one thing: move out of New York state.

Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple of simple things — registering to vote, changing my driver’s license, filling out a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate — in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York taxes annually.

By moving to Florida, I can spend that $5 million on worthy causes, like better hospitals, improving education or the Clinton Global Initiative. Or maybe I’ll continue to invest it in fighting the status quo in Albany. One thing’s certain: That money won’t continue to fund Albany’s bloated bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and regular special-interest handouts.

How did the state get to this point? By spending, spending and spending some more.

Going, going, going Galt.

Who’s next?

[Jolie Rouge]

July 16, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:30 AM

The New York Post reports that congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul would create a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for New York's top earners. Myron Magnet also focuses on New York in an article on "The obsolete New York model." Magnet notes:


It's worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren't rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters.

They were rebelling against taxes.

To them, having to pay duties they hadn't voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property--theft--and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate. What would they make, then, of today's New York City, where 1.2 percent of the taxpayers--40,000 households--pay 50 percent of the income taxes, and half the households pay no income tax at all?

If the tax code ensures that those who pay the bulk of the taxes are always a minority of those who vote for the legislature that imposes the taxes, isn't that taxation without representation? Isn't it also the tyranny of the majority that the Founders tried to prevent?


Magnet's important article is consistent with the analysis that John Hinderaker and I brought to related issues in our essay "Broad ownership needs broad taxpaying." I also revisited the issue last fall in the Christian Science Monitor column "Obama, Joe the plumber and the gospel of envy." Key quote (Aristotle's warning): "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024063.php


Everyone.... sing with me ...


1,2,3,4,1,2

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.

(If you drive a car car),
I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit sit),
I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold cold),
I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk walk),
I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.

‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Ah Ah! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Ah Ah! Mister Heath!),
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeeeah, I’m the Taxman.

Now my advice for those who die,
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
(Taxman!)
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).

[Jolie Rouge]

[b]Small Business Faces Big Bite
House Health Bill Penalizes All but Tiniest Employers for Not Providing Insurance
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.

Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.

Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.

The relatively low thresholds for penalties triggered the sharpest criticism yet from employer groups, who said the burden on small business is too high and doesn't do enough to help them expand insurance coverage.

More
Sen. Grassley Is Key to Health Deal Democrats' Discord Hinders Bill Opinion: The Small-Business Surtax Health Blog: Middle Class Could Feel Pinch Health Blog: CBO: Plan Would Enroll Less Than 5% of Americans "This bill costs too much, it covers too few and it has way too much government involvement," said Michelle Dimarob, a lobbyist with the National Federation of Independent Business, the main trade group for small firms. "Small business doesn't want any of those things."

According to 2006 data from the federation, businesses with between five and nine workers, representing about one million employers, had an average payroll of around $375,000 a year. A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only about half of firms with three to nine workers offered health benefits in 2008.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the measure on Tuesday, praising it as a historic step toward insuring all Americans that has eluded lawmakers for decades. "This bill is a starting point and a path to success to lower costs to consumers and businesses," the California Democrat said.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday calculated the cost of the House's plan to expand insurance coverage at $1.04 trillion over 10 years, and predicted the measure would eventually lead 97% of legal American residents to have insurance. That's in line with President Barack Obama's desired budget for a health overhaul and lawmakers' pledges for expanding coverage.

The estimate doesn't factor in the plan to pay for the bill, including the new tax on wealthy Americans, or certain changes to Medicare and Medicaid, all of which could affect the final price tag.

The House bill would place new taxes on the wealthiest people to help expand insurance coverage to the nation's 46 million uninsured people. The legislation calls for a 5.4% surtax on those with annual gross incomes exceeding $1 million.

Households with annual income between $500,000 a year and $1 million would be hit with a 1.5% surtax, and those earning between $350,000 and $500,000 would face a 1% surtax. Those rates could eventually increase to 3% and 2%, respectively, if the government doesn't achieve certain health-cost savings.

The 1,018-page initiative contains several components pushed by liberal Democrats that were long expected to be part of House legislation, but which face considerable opposition in the Senate. Most notably, the House bill creates a new public health-insurance plan aimed at individuals and small businesses that otherwise can't get affordable coverage.

The House measure would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to individuals who are sick, while also requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty equal to about 2.5% of their gross income. It would provide families earning up to $88,000 a year with subsidies to help them buy coverage. And it would expand health-insurance coverage through the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.

The Senate legislation is also expected to include mandates on insurers to provide coverage and individuals to carry it, although the details may differ. The bigger differences will come on the financing side, where many senators are cautious about introducing major new taxes on the wealthy to pay for health care.

The White House is pushing for action before the August recess in both houses of Congress to give lawmakers time to reconcile their two versions, pass that compromise through the House and the Senate and send Mr. Obama a final bill by autumn. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee could approve its health overhaul bill as soon as Wednesday.

That will get merged with a bill in the Senate Finance Committee, where lawmakers are trying to craft a bipartisan measure. Chairman Max Baucus on Tuesday was pitching his colleagues on a plan to finance the bill through a combination of more-modest tax increases. He is trying to fill a hole of about $320 billion over 10 years, after Democrats objected to a provision to tax upper-end employee health benefits.

The fresh package included a new fee on pharmaceuticals and other health-care industries, and stiffer corporate-reporting measures aimed at collecting a greater share of corporate taxes owed each year, two Senate aides said.

Under the first proposal, health industries including drug makers and insurers would be charged an assessment, with individual companies' fees based on their market share. It's not clear how large the total assessment would be.

The proposal also seeks to raise $75 billion to $100 billion over 10 years by giving states an incentive to issue bonds that would help offset the expanded federal share of Medicaid.

"The goal here is a bunch of smaller, less controversial items that can add up," one official said.

The package may still include a modified version of the plan to tax high-end employer-provided health insurance, though on a smaller scale, aides said.

Mr. Baucus spent much of the day meeting one-on-one with members of his committee, and he put on an optimistic face. "We're going to pass very significant health reform this year," the Montana Democrat said.

But the pre-recess deadline appeared in danger as Republicans expressed concern that the process is moving too quickly.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key Republican whom Mr. Baucus is trying to win over, said Tuesday that the legislation is far too complex to rush and that she saw little chance of moving a bill through the Senate before the August break.

"I frankly couldn't imagine at this point bringing it to the floor and completing our deliberations...before the August recess," the Maine senator said. She said "arbitrary, artificial time frames really are not realistic given the magnitude of the task we are assigned to do."

In addition to health care, the White House also hopes for action on energy and financial-sector regulation, both of which would consume time this fall.

At a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders on Monday, Mr. Obama pushed Mr. Baucus to produce legislation by Thursday.

Senators are now talking openly of keeping the chamber in session an extra week, though some say that is simply a tactic to discourage delay by senators who have plans for vacations, congressional trips and hometown activities.

A further complication is that if it looks as if the Senate can't or won't act this summer, many House Democrats are likely to hesitate about voting on a contentious issue -- including raising taxes -- for something that might never become law.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html

Is there anything that “the wealthy” won’t be paying for? I wonder what the Dems will do when spending from “the rich” goes down, and they start moving more of their money offshore?

And at least half of the so-called 45 million uninsured Americans chose to not purchase. But, don’t worry, government will force them to be covered. All to fix, well, something

[Jolie Rouge]

Thursday, September 24, 2009
Maybe This Is Why Obama Wants Paterson Gone

The efforts by Barack Obama to force NY Gov. David Paterson not to run for election in 2010 have roiled NY politics, and baffled many who wonder why a President felt the need to get involved in state politics.

The crushing NY State budget gap has forced Paterson to speak some harsh truths, which may not be to the Obama administration's liking. One of those truths is that taxing the rich is not the answer to economic problems. The same "tax the rich" policies which were the bedrock underneath Obama's campaign, and are at the heart of Democratic efforts to pay for health care restructuring.

In a recent speech, Paterson noted that a "tax the rich" strategy produced negative results for NY State:

Now, early revenue figures suggest that taxing the wealthy more under this year's state budget may have driven away richer New Yorkers. That could make the economic comeback for the state even harder.

"You heard the mantra, 'Tax the rich, tax the rich,"' Paterson said Wednesday at a gathering of newspaper editors at an Associated Press event in Syracuse. "We've done that. We've probably lost jobs and driven people out of the state."

This sort of talk will get you fired from the Democratic team of Obama sycophants. As Paterson now is finding out. "Tax the rich" doesn't work, and David Paterson is one of the few Democrats with the guts to say so.

Paterson understands the emptiness of promises to solve budget problems by targeting the rich. Too bad Obama doesn't understand, and wants to fire the messenger, rather than listen to the message.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/09/maybe-this-is-why-obama-wants-paterson.html

The timing of his visit could make it seem like he objected to Patterson's decision to defund ACORN contracts with NY.... :hmmmm2:

[Jolie Rouge]

See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/628336-obamas-not-so-secret-plan-raise-taxes.html

Obama's Assault on the Poor
December 1, 2009

During the 2008 presidential campaign, we heard now-President Obama declare that he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Consequently, a number of analyses were performed on his proposals, some supporting his 95% claim and others debunking it. As in most election campaigns, analyses tend to be skewed toward their sponsors' way of thinking.

Fast forward to 2009, and we see that President Obama has championed legislation that reduced taxes for most working individuals. As imperfect as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "Stimulus Bill") was, it did contain a certain amount of tax relief through a reduction in payroll taxes and adjustments to certain tax credits.

That's the good news. The bad news is that these same working Americans may also be subjected to legislation and other initiatives that can more than offset any tinkering around the margins Obama has done to produce tax cuts. In fact, some of these current and proposed laws would hit the poorest Americans much harder than any other demographic group.

This week, I'm going to chronicle some of the changes that President Obama has supported and their effect on those least able to pay the tab. Some of these policies and programs have been enacted and others are just proposed, but either way they show that the Obama administration is no friend of the average working American, and especially not the poor.

Promises Kept – A Mildly Stimulating Tax Reduction

Any discussion about the effects of President Obama's current and proposed tax initiatives would be unfair if it did not include the fact that tax reductions of a sort have taken place, and have affected most working individuals. The Stimulus Bill ushered in tax cuts in the form of the "Making Work Pay Tax Credit."

These tax credits are available in 2009 and 2010 in the amounts of $400 per single taxpayer and $800 for joint filers. To stay true to the 95% promise, the tax cuts are completely phased out for individuals earning over $100,000 per year and couples earning over $200,000. The tax credit is refundable, so even those who owe no income tax can receive a benefit. Social Security recipients and other retirees received a one-time payment of $250.

Because tax credits typically only become available after filing a tax return, the Stimulus Bill provided that these credits were to be paid out through a reduction in payroll taxes during the year. The thought process, no doubt, was that a little extra in the paycheck would result in higher spending and, as a result, an economic recovery.

The Making Work Pay Tax Credit wasn't the only provision of the Stimulus Bill to affect American taxpayers. It also provided for limited expansion of the "Earned Income Tax Credit" and increased the eligibility for the "Additional Child Tax Credit." It also enhanced the "Health Coverage Tax Credit," provided for a first-time homebuyer tax credit and allowed for the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits to be tax-free.

So, how's the tax credit working out for you? If you're like many working Americans, it's been pretty much a non-event. Yes, it provides a little more money in the paycheck each month, but I suspect that the relatively small amount and temporary nature of the tax credit limit its effectiveness.

At this point, it's hard to tell whether or not these tax benefits were successful in kick-starting the economy. While we've had a modest economic recovery since the Stimulus Bill was enacted, many analysts attribute this more to the "Cash for Clunkers" and first-time homebuyers programs, among others. Some also note that these tax credits were mostly saved rather than used to increase consumption. Even so, the president gets a check mark for fulfilling the "95%" campaign promise.

Of course, most of the provisions discussed above are temporary and apply for only one or two years, making these tax cuts a mixed blessing. They may help out in the short-term, but provide no lasting tax relief, even for lower-income Americans.

Other Policies Hurt the Poor

Also in the spirit of fairness, I think it's important to bring to light a number of lesser-known policies supported by the Obama administration that are having or could have a negative effect on the poor. Depending upon the habits and situation of many lower-income Americans, these policies may more than offset the benefits gained from the Stimulus Bill.

In addition, unlike most of the Stimulus Bill allowances, the policies that hurt the poor are intended to be more permanent fixtures in the tax code. Thus, while the tax relief is generally temporary, tax increases usually last forever.

Below, I have listed a variety of new and proposed policies supported by the Obama administration that have either a direct or indirect negative effect on lower-income Americans. While some of these are likely the result of unintended consequences, others have already been criticized for being regressive and yet the administration continues to move forward.

Increased Tobacco Tax

One of the first actions President Obama took after taking office was to increase the tax on tobacco products. And this was no small increase. Taxes on cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and other products were raised anywhere from 158% to 2,653%. Yes, you read it right – one tobacco product had a tax increase of over 2,600%. Below are the details of the various tax increases by each type of tobacco product:

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/forecasts_trends/archive/2009/12/01/obama-s-assault-on-the-poor.aspx


Tobacco Product - Previous Tax - New Tax - % Increase

Cigarettes - $0.39/pack - $1.01/pack - 158%

Pipe Tobacco - $1.10/lb - $24.78/lb - 2,159%

Large Cigars - $0.05 each - $0.40 each - 722%

Small Cigars - $0.04/pack - $1.01/pack - 2,653%

Chewing Tobacco - $0.20/lb - $0.50/lb - 158%

Snuff - $0.59/lb - $1.51/lb - 158%


The purpose of this huge tax increase was to fund the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), a program that helps lower-income families obtain health insurance for dependent children. However, some of the proponents of this legislation noted that their primary reason for supporting this bill was to make tobacco products so expensive that users would opt to quit rather than paying exorbitant prices for tobacco products. A March 29 Fox News article noted:


"Medical groups see a tax increase right in the middle of a recession as a great incentive to help persuade smokers to quit."

That brings up an interesting question – what happens to S-CHIP if everyone decides to give up tobacco products? It seems odd to fund an ongoing health care initiative for uninsured children with a tax designed to help decrease demand for the products upon which it is levied. Since the S-CHIP program is designed to aid lower-income families, if the anti-tobacco lobby gets its wish, the availability of S-CHIP might become unavailable to those who need it.

However, even the most ardent anti-smoking activists know that everyone will not stop using tobacco products just because of a price increase. Sure, the higher prices will drive some people to quit, but overall demand probably won't be affected all that much. This brings us to another issue that directly affects lower-income individuals: a Gallup Poll taken in the spring of this year indicated that there is an inverse relationship between household income and the likelihood of smoking.

In other words, as a general rule, more lower-income individuals smoke than those in higher income brackets. The Gallup Poll found that 53% of smokers come from households with less than $36,000 annual income while only 12% of smokers come from households with incomes of $90,000 or more. Thus, increased tobacco taxes have a disproportionate effect on the poor.

Of course, with smokers being such an unpopular minority (only an estimated 21% of Americans are smokers), tobacco users seem to be fair game for both state and federal tax legislation. Even so, for someone with a two-pack-per-day habit, the new federal 62-cents-per-pack cigarette tax increase will cost them about $38 more per month, which pretty much negates any benefit from the Making Work Pay Tax Credit for a single taxpayer. And unlike the temporary tax credit, the tobacco tax increase will continue long after the stimulus payments are forgotten.

[Jolie Rouge]

Cash for Clunkers

The mainstream press has heralded the "Cash for Clunkers" program a huge success. According to government figures, close to 700,000 vehicles were traded in for new, more fuel efficient transportation. Other sources, however, have painted a much different picture, but I'm not going to get into that discussion today. (I did, however, include an interesting Special Article at the end of this E-Letter that disputes the "official" government report of Cash for Clunkers results.)

Today's focus is to highlight Obama administration policies that have a negative effect on the poor. In the Cash for Clunkers program, the first thing you notice is that this benefit was not available to most poor and low-income Americans. After all, the program provided a trade-in credit of up to $4,500, but the remainder of the new vehicle had to be financed or paid for in cash. Lower-income households have a hard time doing either one.

However, not being able to participate in the Cash for Clunkers program doesn't necessarily put low-income individuals at a disadvantage, but another consequence of this ill-fated program does. By taking almost 700,000 older model cars off of the road, the program helped to raise the cost of vehicles for those who consider "clunkers" to be a primary source of affordable transportation.

Granted, some scoff at the idea that taking a mere 700,000 vehicles off the road had an effect on used car prices, since it's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the estimated average of 40 million used car sales per year, as reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Supporters also point to increasing used car prices even before the Cash for Clunkers program came about, generally due to demand from car dealers whose new car sales had gone flat.

However, it is important to remember that the "clunkers" targeted by the federal rebate program were generally older, lower gas mileage models that don't make it onto the lots of glitzy high-end dealerships. Instead, these cars are purchased as affordable transportation by lower-income households. Thus, taking almost 700,000 cars out of the low-end used car market did have the disproportionate effect described by many critics of the Cash for Clunkers program.

And evidence for this is more than anecdotal. One of my staff members has a relative in the car business here in Austin, and he has told us that the Cash for Clunkers program definitely had a direct effect on his business. For example, he says the average price for the older model used cars he buys at auction are 20% to 30% higher now than they were before the Cash for Clunkers program snapped up so many automobiles. Since these price increases are passed along to consumers, low-income car buyers have essentially been hit with a major price increase for basic transportation.

Even worse, the resulting price increases for affordable transportation now require an increased down payment, which is hard to come by for someone whose work hours may have just been cut due to the poor economy. Plus, a higher amount has to be financed, which is no easy task in this era of tight credit, especially for subprime borrowers. The bottom line is that the Cash for Clunkers program has priced many low-income individuals out of the used car market.

However, it doesn't end there. For those who forego buying another car and try to make do with the old one, prices for parts are also on the increase thanks, in part, to the Cash for Clunkers program. The demand that clunkers be rendered inoperable has removed a ready supply of used car parts. Yet again, those who can afford new cars win, those who can't lose.

And on a related note, the Cato Institute predicts that President Obama's September decision to impose a 35% tariff on tires imported from China could raise the prices of low-end tires by 20% to 30%. While the tariff applies to all tires, low-priced tires are expected to be the hardest hit. Since these "entry-level" tires are usually purchased by those with limited incomes, this tariff is another Obama policy likely to have a disproportionate effect on the poor.

Back to the Cash for Clunkers program, some have said that the spike in used car prices is temporary and will be worked off as new car sales produce a renewed supply of trade-ins. However, our Austin car dealer doesn't think that's going to happen anytime soon. New car sales have softened considerably after the Cash for Clunkers program, which means that there are fewer trade-ins for the used car market.

Our dealer friend says that used car auctions that used to run 3,500 cars per week are now down to just over 2,000 cars. Thus, it's going to take quite a while to rebuild used car inventories and bring prices back down. Unfortunately, having the price of affordable transportation increase while the economy is in the dumpster is just an extra jolt to the finances of those who can least afford higher out-of-pocket expenditures.

Cap-and-Trade Legislation

While the push for cap-and-trade legislation has not yet been made into law, it has already been described by no less than Warren Buffett as being a "regressive" form of taxation that will have a much greater negative effect on those in lower income brackets. You may recall that Mr. Buffett is an Obama supporter, so this is one of those rare occasions where the economic realities are at odds with politics as usual.

By way of background, I wrote about cap-and-trade legislation in my July 14, 2009 E-Letter. In a nutshell, a cap-and-trade system limits the amount of greenhouse gasses industry is permitted to release into the environment. To exceed this limit, a business would have to purchase (or trade) allowances from other businesses who produce less than their permitted cap.

The end result is that industries that burn fossil fuels and produce the most greenhouse gasses will have increased costs of production due to the requirement to purchase the right to exceed their emissions allowance. It's not likely that much, if any, of this increased cost will be absorbed by the business, so consumers will likely end up footing the bill.

Of course, this entire system is predicated upon the idea that global warming/climate change is caused by human activity, predominantly "dirty" industries such as steel production, coal-powered electric generation plants, gasoline refineries, etc., etc. Again, the theme of this article does not allow space for a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of the arguments for and against man-made global warming. Instead, we want to see how implementation of cap-and-trade legislation may affect the pocketbooks of low-income Americans.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that the burning of fossil fuels supplies about 70% of the electricity generated in the US. The most common fossil fuels are gas, petroleum and coal, with coal alone accounting for approximately 50% of the power generated in the country. If 70% of the electric generating plants have to pay higher taxes, you know who will end up footing the bill.

Of course, politicians like to claim that they are not taxing the public, but rather taxing polluters. I guess only a politician can't understand the obvious fact that any such taxes will be passed on to consumers.[b] Thus, if cap-and-trade legislation increases the costs of 70% of the electricity used in the US, then it's a pretty good bet that your electric bill will be increasing – and that's just one of the goods and services that will be affected.

When you then consider that lower-income families spend a greater percentage of their income for basic goods and utilities, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this demographic group will be hit much harder than any other. A March 2009 Wall Street Journal article noted the following regarding Obama's cap-and-trade proposal:


"Hit hardest would be the ‘95% of working families' Mr. Obama keeps mentioning…Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating."

Opponents of cap-and-trade legislation also claim that it will also result in higher unemployment, but the Obama administration claims just the opposite. So who's right? The website FactCheck.org researched claims by the Obama administration that 1.7 million "green" jobs would be created by a cap-and-trade system and compared it to opposing claims that up to 2.4 million jobs might be lost. Here's what they found:


"It's true that limiting carbon emissions would create some jobs – building wind turbines or insulating homes and businesses, for example. But it's equally true that raising the cost of burning coal and oil would act as a drag on the entire economy, slowing down job creation in other industries.

According to projections by the Energy Information Administration and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the net effect of the House cap-and-trade bill will likely be to slow future job growth. Using 11 different possible future scenarios, EIA projects that future job growth might be constrained by something between 388,000 (under the most optimistic assumptions) and 2.3 million (assuming everything goes badly) 20 years from now. CBO also says employment would likely be lower than it would without the legislation – but only ‘a little.'

So claims that the bill would create hundreds of thousands of ‘green jobs' are misleading, at best. The government's own official economic projections indicate more jobs will be lost than created."

So, not only will cap-and-trade increase costs of goods and services, it's also likely to cost jobs in the economy – a double whammy for low-income families.

[Jolie Rouge]

Soaking the Rich

I'm sure you will recall that President Obama was elected, in part, based on his pledge to not only cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, but also to raise taxes on all the "rich" who had benefited from tax cuts during the Bush administration. I have already detailed above how that same 95% of Americans will likely forfeit any benefit of Obama's earlier tax cuts, but it's also important to discuss how "soaking the rich" could also negatively affect the poor.

Back in February of this year, Obama's 2010 budget proposal included, among other things, raising the top marginal tax bracket to 39.6% and reducing the tax deduction for charitable contributions for persons making over $250,000 per year.

Normally, if someone gives money to a qualified charity, they get a tax deduction applicable to whatever marginal tax bracket they are in. Thus, if Obama increases the top tax bracket to 39.6%, a $10,000 contribution would actually "cost" only $6,040 since the contributor would get a $3,960 write-off. Under Obama's proposal, the tax savings would be limited to the 28% tax bracket, resulting in $1,160 less tax savings ($3,960 - $2,800 = $1,160).

So, how does this affect the poor? As we saw in the ill-fated "luxury tax" under President George "Read My Lips" H. W. Bush, penalizing certain activities usually reserved for the "rich" can result in unexpected behavior. In the case of the luxury tax, wealthy individuals simply stopped buying cars, boats, airplanes and other luxury items subject to the tax, resulting in many of those employed at high-end goods manufacturers losing their jobs. This was yet another case study on the law of unintended consequences.

Now fast forward to the Obama charitable contribution proposal. The income tax deduction for charitable contributions sometimes makes it possible for higher-income households to actually give more to charities than they might absent a tax benefit. Thus, charities fear that reducing the tax benefit of charitable contributions will have a negative effect on contributions and, in turn, services they can provide.

And if charitable contributions decrease, guess who's going to be affected the most. That's right, the poor are the primary beneficiaries of many charitable organizations. Thus, it just makes sense that if charitable contributions drop, so will services to this demographic group. Charities are having a hard enough time getting by in light of the current economic situation, and they certainly don't need an additional headwind in the form of changes to the tax law.

Fortunately, the charitable contribution limitation was not part of the final budget bill, but it has resurfaced in discussions on how to fund health care. I suspect that we have not yet seen the last of this proposal, misguided as it may be.

Credit Card "Reform"

Congress' idea of reform appears to be passing laws containing tough provisions but then giving the targets of these laws ample time to negate the effect. That's exactly what happened in regard to the Credit CARD Act of 2009. Passed into law in May of 2009, the provisions do not take effect until February of 2010, giving credit card companies plenty of time to circumvent many of the key provisions of this new law.

For example, one of the key provisions of the law limits credit card issuers from unfairly raising interest rates. However, this rule doesn't apply until February of next year so in the meantime, credit card companies are busily raising rates. According to the Federal Reserve's quarterly survey of senior loan officers, 54% of banks have already or will soon increase credit card interest rates on their customers with good credit.

For those with subprime credit, which includes many low-income families, the news is even worse. The Fed survey found that 74% of banks have already or will increase interest rates on subprime customers. Add to this the fact that just over half of banks either have cut or will cut the credit limits of their customers, and you get a major reduction of credit for lower-income households.

For customers seeking new cards, 47% of the senior loan officers indicated that they will increase credit score requirements for prime customers, but this jumps to 53% when considering subprime candidates. Plus, almost 40% of banks have increased or will increase annual fees on credit cards.

If you have a credit card, this is probably not news to you. You have probably already received notices from your issuing companies about increased interest rates, decreased credit limits or both. Many customers are using savings to pay off their balances to escape these ever-increasing interest rates and fees. However, this option is usually not available to lower-income card holders, since they have limited or no savings, so they have to just grin and bear it.

And just in case you thought that this new law would have a positive influence on credit card companies before it goes into effect, it has not. A recent study released by the Pew Charitable Trust indicated that its survey of 400 credit card issuers found that 100% continue practices that will be outlawed by the CARD Act in February of 2010. In effect, credit card companies have been given a window of opportunity to raise interest rates so high before the law goes into effect that there will be little need to do so afterward.

An even more disturbing possibility relating primarily to lower-income and subprime borrowers is that, as credit through traditional avenues becomes harder to get, these consumers may seek out other, less favorable sources of credit. Some fear that low-income consumers unable to get credit cards will seek out payday lending, auto title loans and pawn shops, which are far more expensive ways to borrow money.

In a perfect world, we would all live within our means and not have to access credit for emergency expenses and sometimes even consumer staples. However, the poor in our society do not always have the ability to do so. Thus, credit card "reform" has only served to enrich banks at the expense of consumers who are left with few other options. Yet again, a governmental "fix" results in a disadvantage to the poor.

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama's right: The wealthy don’t need a huge tax break to support charity
By Daniel Grant
Fri Jan 8, 8:46 am ET

Amherst, MA – What motivates people to donate to charities? The charitable deduction was first enacted into the federal tax code in 1917 as a way to possibly incentivize charity. Yet here we are in 2010, still arguing about whether reducing that incentive for the very wealthy will result in any drop-off in giving. Shouldn’t we know by now? In 2009, President Obama proposed lowering the tax break given to the wealthy who donate from 35 percent to 28 percent in his federal budget for 2010. The idea was that additional revenue to the federal government – up to $318 billion over a 10-year period – could be used to help the economy. Echoing a view Republicans have long held, the president indicated he didn’t believe tax codes were the impetus for charitable giving. He also indicated that institutions and nonprofits are better served by a prospering economy rather than by tax breaks. He’s right. His plan has drawn a range of responses. An article of faith among liberals is that the higher the marginal tax rate, the greater the incentive to make donations, while conservatives traditionally oppose higher taxes and claim that people make charitable gifts because of a desire to help some cause in which they believe. But if you sift through the countless discussions, essays, and data collected over the past 93 years, there is no strong evidence to believe the tax code might have any appreciable effect on the willingness of people to make donations to charitable organizations. Unfortunately that hasn’t stopped nonprofit observers from hitting the panic button. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities expressed worry that charitable gifts might decline by 1.3 percent. And the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University apparently ignored its own 2006 groundbreaking study: It estimated that overall giving would decrease 2.1 percent, and that donations by the highest-income households would drop even more, to 4.8 percent, resulting in a loss of $3.87 billion to charities. Some went so far as to call the proposal “a stake in the heart.” But these numbers and this worry are based in fear and clouded by politics. The most comprehensive survey to date of the philanthropic behavior of wealthy Americans, the 2006 study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, found that wealthy donors were reporting that even major tax policy changes would actually not affect their giving. The principal author of the study, Patrick Rooney, conceded that certainly “[p]eople respond to incentives, and when you take away from donors the appreciating value of property they would donate, they may look to alternatives, such as selling.” But it’s important to note that when you sell something, it means that the taxpayer has to pay a capital gains tax, which in turn generates revenues that can fund social services, benefiting all of us. We’ve been here before. The 1986 Tax Reform Act was also heralded as a catastrophe for charities: The Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofit foundations and charities, led the charge against the legislation, predicting an $11 billion reduction in donations due to lowering the top marginal tax rate from 50 percent to 38 percent – reducing the value of a donation by 24 percent – and the elimination of the nonitemizer deduction for charitable contributions. The catastrophe didn’t happen. In fact, a year after the law’s enactment, according to Independent Sector, nonprofit groups recorded a cumulative 10 percent increase over the year before, maintaining the same ratio that held steady throughout much of the 1980s. Similarly, consider the recent gradual elimination of the estate tax. The amount exempted increased from $675,000 in 2001 to $3.5 million in 2009 but has not diminished the willingness of wealthy collectors or their heirs from donating property to charitable nonprofit institutions. Museums continue to report substantial bequests and gifts from heirs.

“Certainly,” as Andrew Finch, senior director of government affairs for the nonprofit advocacy group Americans for the Arts put it, “people give because they want to give.... Altruism exists.” Nonprofits should take heart. Economists of all stripes agree that the tax code determines not if people make donations but how and when, and serves to organize the process of charitable giving rather than determine whether or not it takes place. Currently, Mr. Obama’s proposal, an idea presented as a way of paying for expansion of the healthcare initiative, is just one of many sitting to the side while the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq take center stage. But as Washington considers the 2011 federal budget and faces the reality of another year in our current economic situation, tax increases will be considered once again. Obama shouldn’t be distracted by the predictions based purely on fear and by those running the numbers based on economic models. Rather, he should press on with his idea of lowering the tax deduction for the wealthy as it’s based on how individuals actually behave. In Europe and Canada, taxes are higher, but there are far more government-run social services and, compared with the United States, quite minimal individual giving. Americans don’t need a government subsidy to be kind to fellow citizens. Daniel Grant is the author of “The Business of Being an Artist.”

----

Did this essay make you think? Tell us about it on Facebook!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100108/cm_csm/272680

[Jolie Rouge]

Onkar Ghate – Fri Apr 29, 8:54 am ET

Irvine, Calif. – "Atlas Shrugged" has finally reached the big screen and, especially among tea partiers, Ayn Rand is being hailed a prophet. How could she have anticipated, more than 50 years ago, a United States spinning out of financial control, plagued by soaring spending and crippling regulations? How could she have painted villains who seem ripped from today’s headlines?

There’s Wesley Mouch, who in the face of failed government programs screams like Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts for wider powers. There’s Eugene Lawson, “the banker with a heart,” who like former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is ever ready with a bailout. There’s Mr. Thompson, who like President Obama seeks to rally the country behind pious platitudes. There’s Orren Boyle, who like President Bush says that we must abandon free-market principles to save the free market.

Time to 'go Galt'? And in the face of this onslaught, what can you do? Should you, like Rand’s heroes, “go Galt,” stop working, retreat to a secluded valley, and try to rebuild only when the country has collapsed?

Rand was asked these very questions in her own lifetime. Her answers might surprise you. In the 1970s, America was in a deep financial crisis (a new word, stagflation, had to be coined), urban violence was rampant, and power-seeking politicians like President Nixon instituted wage and price controls that led to, among other things, gas stations with no gas. How, people wondered, could Rand have foreseen all this? Was she a prophet? No, she answered. She had simply identified the basic cause of why the country was veering from crisis to new crisis.

Was the solution to “go Galt” and quit society? No, Rand again answered. The solution was simultaneously much easier and much harder. “So long as we have not yet reached the state of censorship of ideas,” she once said, “one does not have to leave a society in the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged.... But you know what one does have to do? One has to break relationships with the culture.... [D]iscard all the ideas – the entire cultural philosophy which is dominant today.”

Now, if you’ve only seen the movie, the fact that "Atlas Shrugged" is not a political novel might surprise you. But the book’s point is that our plight is caused not by corrupt politicians (who are only a symptom) or some alleged flaw in human nature. It’s caused by the philosophic ideas and moral ideals most of us embrace.

“You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded,” novel hero John Galt declares to a country in crisis. “Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster.”

He elaborates: “You have sacrificed justice to mercy.” (For example, calls to make homeownership “accessible” to those who could not afford it and then bailouts and foreclosure freezes to spare them when they couldn’t pay.)

“You have sacrificed reason to faith.” (For example, attempts to prevent stem cell research on Biblical grounds or blind faith that Mr. Obama’s deliberately empty rhetoric about hope and change will magically produce prosperity.)

“You have sacrificed wealth to need.” (For example, Bush’s prescription drug benefit and Obamacare, both enacted because people needed “free” health care.)

“You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial.” (For example, attacks on Bill Gates for making a fortune; applause when he gives that fortune away.)

“You have sacrificed happiness to duty.” (For example, every president’s Kennedyesque exhortations to “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”)

The result? “Why ... do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality....”

Must question our idealsThis is what "Atlas Shrugged" is asking us to question: our ideals. Rethink our convictions and philosophy of life from the ground up. Without doing so, it argues, we won’t escape further crises.

Strike, the book urges us, but intellectually, since to strike means to reject the fundamental terms of your opponents and assert your own.

This kind of thinking is difficult, Rand held, but necessary to enter the Atlantis depicted toward the end of "Atlas Shrugged" – “at least psychologically,” she wrote, “which is a precondition of the possibility ever to enter it existentially.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110429/cm_csm/380380


In a nushell: Kill your television, cut up the credit cards, pay your debts.. Fits the bill for where she said.."One has to break relationships with the culture.... [D]iscard all the ideas – the entire cultural philosophy which is dominant today."

Works for me. I'm sick of 'shopping' as a lifestyle I am supposed to embrace.

---

I have no problem with Rand's free market views. But, we do NOT have free markets. Corporate welfare is the "dole " that is destroying this country. We sudsidize the destruction of environment through low cost mining, forestries, grazing,drilling rights etc. Then we pay for the environmental, social and human costs through entities such as the EPA, workman's compensation and unemployment insurance. We do not charge business for the true costs of the infrastructure that is damaged, such as highways in disrepair from heavy trucks. Finally, we sudsidize monopolies, especially to large utilities or with large government contracts(think Haliburton ).

Perhaps years ago some of this made some sense; Trickle-down dollars might stay in the country. But now, corporations are shifting jobs, dollars and investment overseas. So, if we really want a working free market, let us start by businesses paying their own way!

[Jolie Rouge]

.
Huge tax increase looms at year-end 'fiscal cliff'
By ANDREW TAYLOR | Associated Press – 12 hrs ago.

..


WASHINGTON (AP) — A typical middle-income family making $40,000 to $64,000 a year could see its taxes go up by $2,000 next year if lawmakers fail to renew a lengthy roster of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, according to a new report Monday

Taxpayers across the income spectrum would be hit with large tax hikes, the Tax Policy Center said in its study, with households in the top 1 percent income range seeing an average tax increase of more than $120,000, while a family making between $110,000 to $140,000 could see a tax hike in the $6,000 range.

Taxpayers across the income spectrum will get slammed with increases totaling more than $500 billion — a more than 20 percent increase — with nine out of 10 households being affected by the expiration of tax cuts enacted under both President Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The expiring provisions include Bush-era cuts on wage and investment income and cuts for married couples and families with children, among others. Also expiring is a 2 percentage point temporary payroll tax cut championed by Obama.

The looming expiration of the large roster of tax cuts is one of the issues confronting voters in November, with the chief difference between Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney being the tax treatment of wealthier earners. Obama is calling for permitting rates on individual income exceeding $200,000 and family incoming over $250,000 to go back to Clinton-era rates of as much as 39.6 percent.

Both candidates call for rewriting the tax code next year, but any such effort promises to be difficult and could take considerable time.

Monday's study, by the independent Tax Policy Center, deals with the immediate increases set to slap taxpayers in January under the existing framework of the tax code.

Few are talking of renewing Obama's payroll tax cut, even though that would mean a healthy tax increase for many working people. Working families with modest incomes would be hit hard as the child tax credit would shrink from a maximum of $1,000 per child to $500.

As a result, a married couple earning $50,000 with three dependent children that currently receives an almost $1,500 income tax refund largely due to the child tax credit would see their fortunes reversed by more than $3,000 next year and pay more than $1,500 in income taxes while seeing their payroll taxes go up by $1,000 if the full menu of tax cuts expire.

"It's just a huge, huge number," said Eric Toder, one of the authors of the study.

Economists warn that the looming tax hikes, combined with $109 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in January, could throw the fragile economy back into recession if Washington doesn't act. The automatic spending cuts are coming due because of the failure of last year's deficit "supercommittee" to strike a bargain. The combination of the sharp tax hikes and spending cuts has been dubbed a "fiscal cliff."

"The fiscal cliff threatens an unprecedented tax increase at year end," says the report. "Taxes would rise by more than $500 billion in 2013 — an average of almost $3,500 per household — as almost every tax cuts enacted since 2001 would expire."

Cumulatively, the country would see a 5 percentage point jump in its average tax rate, which works out to taxes on the top 1 percent jumping by more than 7 percentage points and about 4 percentage points for most people earning below $100,000 a year.

Put another way, people in the $40,000-$64,000 income range would see their average federal tax rate jump from 14 percent to 17.8 percent — or an increase in their overall federal bill of 27 percent.

All told, almost 90 percent of all households would face a tax increase, though the top 20 percent of earners would bear 60 percent of the overall cost. Across all households the tax increases would average almost $3,500.

The expiration of cuts on capital gains and stock dividends is a key reason why wealthier people would see a higher increase in their tax burdens.

Republicans controlling the House have also called for the expiration of Obama-backed tax cuts for the working poor, including expansions of the earned income and child tax credits.

But all sides are calling for the renewal of Bush-era tax rates for everyone else. Without a renewal of those rates, a married couple would pay a 28 percent rate on taxable income exceeding $72,300 instead of the 25 percent rate they now pay. And the 10 percent rate paid on the first $8,900 of income would jump to 15 percent.

The new top rate of 39.6 percent would kick in for income over $397,000. The current top rate is 35 percent rate.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-tax-increase-looms-end-fiscal-cliff-155135586--finance.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Dead state walking
Posted by Judson Phillips on October 2, 2012 at 7:54am' .

The economic collapse is coming. It is coming soon. Whoever wins this election this fall will be the President who has to deal with it. Where is the great collapse coming and what will happen?

In America, we have a dead state walking. It is the lead domino. It will fall and it will fall soon. When it does, it will set off a chain reaction. The government will have to act, whether it wants to or not.

The dead state walking?

California.

California died some time ago. It just hasn’t had the good manners to fall down yet. California is a poster child for the failure of liberal economics. The last dying gasp of conservatism in California was Prop 13 in 1978 to limit property taxes. That one worked. Since then every tax in California has gone through the roof. So has government spending. Every lunatic liberal idea that can be invented is being used in California. The result is predictable. Everyone who has a business that can move is moving. Everyone who has a job that can move is moving. The only people who are not moving are government employees and those on public assistance.

Over a twenty-five year period, California added a net sum of over 10 million people. Unfortunately for California, only 150,000 of those new residents were taxpayers. California’s situation has been called a Greek Tragedy. Comparing California to Greece is not a bad analogy. They have both made the same mistakes. Both California and Greece expanded every sector of the public that is dependent on the government. From government employees receiving lavish salaries and benefits, to state government retirees receiving lavish retirement benefits to the overly generous public assistance benefits. California has the highest tax rates in the nation and in November, there will be a referendum to raise those taxes even higher. Assuming that happens, the middle class in California will continue to shrink.

Businesses are fleeing California in record numbers. Not only do they face high taxes, they face insane regulations. When the Great Obama Depression kicked into full force, one recommendation was that California waive its version of “Cap and Trade” which has been driving up energy prices in California. The proposal was to suspend cap and trade until unemployment dropped below 6%. That modest proposal died.

So where does California go from here?

California is unwilling to cut its spending. It cannot tax enough to keep up with its spending. The end result is going to be an economic implosion. California will go bankrupt. Many of it’s cities have already gone bankrupt. Unfortunately for California, the United States Constitution prohibits individual states from declaring bankruptcy. So what happens when California goes insolvent?

It will not be pretty.

We will see a societal collapse like we have never seen in the United States. When California collapses there will be huge pressure on the Federal Government to bail it out. If Obama is still in the White House, he will want to. After all, it gives him a chance to spend more money and he must try to maintain the illusion that socialism is not a failure. For those of us who live in real American states, the question we all have to ask is why should we bail California out? If the Federal Government bails California out, it will change nothing, as California will need more bailouts down the road. We have seen this in Europe as one bailout follows another. If California gets a bailout, Illinois will want one, as will New York and New Jersey.

If we do not bail out California, we will see massive riots by those who are dependent on government largess. California will descend into anarchy.

What does America do?

Simply throwing money at the problem will not work. California needs to be changed. If California cannot manage its problems then perhaps it is time for California to cease to exist as a state. If California has to go into receivership, the price for decades of stupidity should be that California goes from becoming a state to becoming an American territory. If after a few years, California can get its act back together, then it can petition to become a state again.

California is a disaster. The leaders of California are like the Captain of the Titanic, except the leaders of California, backed the Titanic up and hit the iceberg five more times. There are areas where conservatives still live in California. Unfortunately California’s government is monopolized by liberals, and this shows no sign of changing.

If Obama is reelected, California will be but the first domino to fall in the chain reaction that will rip America apart. If Romney is elected, we at least have a chance.

Meanwhile California remains America’s dead state walking.

[Jolie Rouge]

What If the Fed Has It All Wrong?
By Denis Ouellet

This is the 4th major intervention from the Fed since 2009, each one apparently inflating asset prices without having a definitive impact on the economy other than, most importantly, preventing a lethal debt-deflation spiral.

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-01.jpg

The chart above is used extensively to illustrate the close relationship between QEs and equity prices. Hence investors' Pavlovian reaction to last week's FOMC announcement of an open-ended and unlimited money printing program. Virtually every asset class rose, giving credence to Ben Bernanke's attempt to create a stimulating wealth effect.

What if the Fed has it all wrong?

Correlation does not imply causation. Could there be another reason for the spectacular rise in equity prices since 2009? Let's try earnings, just in case that intuitive, time-tested, relationship might still be working:

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-02.jpg

If there were a direct link between QEs and corporate profits, it should be apparent in S&P 500 company revenues. Yet, Index sales have only grown 16.5% during the last 3.5 years, nothing close to the 60% jump in Fed assets. Given that the Fed is now totally focused on growing employment, I doubt that it would take credit for the spectacular jump in profit margins since 2009, since most of it emanated from cost cutting (mostly labor) and rising productivity.

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-03.jpg

Some recent facts point to weaker earnings ahead:

• Quarterly sales and earnings have peaked in the last 9-12 months.

• Corporate profit margins are at an all-time high.

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-04.jpg

It is therefore dangerous to assume that margins will expand any further. From now on, corporations need to increase sales in order to grow their earnings. Unfortunately, demand is waning.

American wages, currently at a 50-year low as a percentage of GDP, are rising very slowly, so slowly that it is hampering consumer spending and the overall economy. At the time of previous QEs, also designed to create a wealth effect, wages were rising at a much faster clip than today. Furthermore, real wages were rising during 2009 and 2010, partly offsetting slow employment growth.

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-05.jpg

Today, employment growth remains below 1.5% YoY, a rate insufficient to reduce unemployment. Nominal wages are growing 1.2% while inflation is 1.7% and threatens to accelerate, in large part due to the impact that the Fed's actions are having on commodity prices, particularly oil prices.

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-07.jpg

The US economy got lucky in 2011, when gasoline prices dropped 18% to $3.20/gal. just in time for the back-to-school season and Christmas. It's luck extended into 2012, when the U.S. experienced an extraordinarily warm winter. Unless something else extraordinary happens soon (SPR releases?), the exact opposite will happen to oil prices. Gasoline has jumped 16% since July, adding to the squeeze just as we enter the most important shopping period of the year (chart below from gasbuddy.com).

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=A9qj0NiyvjFe4o0zHFnUZpJ92MB8H2AXH41%2byuQT% 2boc%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.mauldineconomics.com%2fupl oads%2fcharts%2f092412-08.jpg

The following chart plots the Fed's printing with commodity prices. Unlike the relationship with equity prices, it is difficult to find anything other than excess financial liquidity to explain the spectacular rise in commodity prices. Considering how world economies have been doing lately, why is it that commodity prices have not declined significantly?

http://ce.investorsinsight.com/CT00463703NjEzMDkyOQAA.html

[Jolie Rouge]

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/california_sanctuary11-300x257.png

Illegal Aliens Cost L.A. County $100 Million in June/July – 22% of TOTAL Welfare Expenditures

By John Hill on September 29, 2012

California is America’s Sanctuary State – and Mexico’s outsourced welfare state.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services reported that more than $100 million in welfare benefits were issued to illegal alien parents for their native-born children in June and July alone, announced Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. http://scvnews.com/?p=36518

The $100 million consists of nearly $40 million in CalWORKs (welfare) and $70 million in food stamps — representing 22% of all CalWORKs and food stamp issuances in the County. At this rate, the projected annual cost is more than $625 million.


“With the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” said Antonovich. “These costs do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars for education.”

So a staggering 22% of ALL welfare payouts for L.A. County go to illegal aliens and their children – more than 90% from Mexico.

Meanwhile Mexico is the 10th richest nation on Earth http://worldmixnews.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-richest-countries-in-world-2011.html with a state-owned oil and minerals monopoly, state-owned tourist beaches, the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helú http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim and is receiving $25 billion annually in “remittances” – cash sent back from its illegals who work (and collect welfare) in the U.S. http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/01/remittances-to-mexico-rebound.html It is a prosperous nation with only a 5% unemployment rate http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120824-706348.html (vs. 8.2% for the U.S.). And its racist government exports its poorest (and brownest) citizens here, mostly to California, to mooch off of U.S. taxpayers.

And yet California continues to elect politicians who cater to illegal aliens, and continue burning billions every year to take care of Mexico’s unwanted working poor – costing California an estimated $21.8 billion a year http://www.fairus.org/states/california according to our friends at FAIR.

Had enough, California? Well apparently many have: according to a recent study, 225,000 Californians are fleeing the state each year http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/29/Report-225-000-Californians-A-Year-Escaping-State-s-High-Taxes-Burdensome-Regulations-Economic-And-Public-Sector-Instability stripping the state of billions in critical income, as residents move to illegal alien-crackdown states like Arizona, which has received $400 million per year of that income.

Californians have a choice: take back your state, or watch it destroy itself on the altar of political correctness as the outsourced welfare state of Mexico – as their government laughs at what chumps we are.

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2012/09/29/illegals-cost-l-a-county-100-million-in-junejuly-22-of-total-welfare-expenditures/

[Jolie Rouge]

“Going Galt” Begins
By drillanwr, on November 9, 2012, at 12:06 am

Today I have officially gone "Galt". Since I have no business or a paying job to quit, I can only cut-off what I do have control over, and that is my charity donations. Today I had the opportunity to do just that. While checking out at Kmart I was asked if I wanted to contribute a $1 to the March of Dimes. I looked the girl in the eye and said, "No thank you. Obama has been re-elected and he assured us only he and the government can take proper care of autistic and Down Syndrome children." She didn't know what to say except, "Okay" and finished the transaction. The people behind me in line just blinked. Then upon getting home the house phone rang and it was somebody asking for a donation to a breast cancer charity. I said, "No, Obama has been re-elected and he assured us only he and the government care about 'lady parts', so you can just wait for money from his stash." and I hung up. It felt ... oddly liberating. When the local FOP calls for the annual donation I will repeat the same, fully knowing they as a union supported Obama in the election. I cannot wait to say the same to the Salvation Army with their red kettles and bells outside all those stores I frequent this holiday season. Oh, and all you little public school kiddies that go door to door with your $1 candy bars and whatnots ... yeah, you too. See what your union teacher says about them apples. Honestly, I hate to do this to charities, but if the agenda is to remove the private sector from life in this country, and to completely depend on the government, then so be it.

And so it begins...

Twitchy: Layoff bomb detonates; Large corporations join small businesses in announcing mass cuts - "45 companies announce layoff's in the past 48 hours! This is what the people wanted! The people have spoken!" http://twitchy.com/2012/11/08/layoff-bomb-detonates-large-corporations-join-small-businesses-in-announcing-mass-cuts/

CBS News Las Vegas: Vegas Employer: Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/vegas-employer-obama-won-so-i-fired-22-employees/

CNBC: Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division http://www.cnbc.com/id/49729998

Washington Times: Virginia store closes for a day to 'mourn the loss of America' http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/8/virginia-store-closes-day-mourn-loss-america/

HotAir: "Elections Have Consequences" http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/11/08/elections-have-consequences/

FLASHBACK - American Thinker (12/11/08): "Blame me for job losses" http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/blame_me_for_job_losses.html

http://babalublog.com/2012/11/going-galt-begins/

[Jolie Rouge]

Grassley on Lew’s Cayman Islands holdings: “The irony is thick.”
posted at 5:31 pm on February 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Well, this is rich.

We have a tax code that perpetually makes it a worthwhile endeavor for wealthy people to use up the time and resources it takes to store various aspects of their income in offshore accounts — and just like everyone else on Planet Earth, even wealthy people are partial to saving more of their own money if they can. If politicians take umbrage with that, perhaps they should address our highly uncompetitive, convoluted, and heavy-handed tax code, instead of class-warmongering against the millionaires and billionaires trying to protect their finances. Don’t hate the player, hate the stupid game.

President Obama, of course, made much ado — much ado — of absolutely hammering Mitt Romney for being such an unpatriotic, ungallant, greedy vulture capitalist who has dared to have offshore accounts as part of his portfolio. Obama waged nothing short of a moral vendetta against the guy, constantly extolling how it is rich people’s duty to “pay a little more” in the name of simple decency and fairness. It was one of Team Obama’s favorite themes, and they hit it early and often.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ktVR-_6B12w

But President Obama’s noble, everyman scruples evidently only apply to Republican opponents, and not to his friends. Because, consistency. Via NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/jack-lews-investment-cayman-islands-flagged-senate-finance-committee-1B8309826


Jack Lew, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary nominee, previously held up to $100,000 in investments in an offshore hedge fund located in the Cayman Islands, according to financial disclosure forms.

Lew’s financial disclosure forms, filed in 2009 and 2011, showed that Lew had invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in a fund called Citigroup Venture Capital International Growth Partnership (Employee) II, L.P. — the very type of fund President Obama has repeatedly criticized.

… According to his official White House biography, Lew served as managing director and chief operating officer of Citi Global Wealth Management and then Citi Alternative Investments (CAI) from 2006 to 2008. …

The source also told NBC News that Lew had no role in creating, managing or operating the fund, and that Citigroup had organized the fund in the Cayman Islands and made it available to other employees. The source said that many other Citigroup employees had investments in the fund.

Hmm — is that kind of like a blind trust? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577440870509984122.html

But it gets better, via The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282079-grassley-sees-irony-in-lews-cayman-islands-fund-


Congressional Republicans are raising new questions about the Treasury nominee’s offshore financial holdings. …

At issue is an employee investment fund based in the Cayman Islands that Lew bought into during his time working at Citigroup before entering the Obama administration. …

“President Obama has been almost obsessively critical of offshore investments,” Grassley said. “He called Ugland House ‘either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.’ ”

The Ugland House is a building in the Cayman Islands that serves as the legal address for thousands of corporations seeking favorable tax breaks. In a 2009 speech, Obama called the use of the adders “the kind of tax scam that we need to end.”

“For years, we’ve talked about shutting down overseas tax havens that let companies set up operations to avoid paying taxes in America,” Obama said.

Our president’s qualms run deep.


http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/09/grassley-on-lews-cayman-islands-holdings-the-irony-is-thick/

[Jolie Rouge]

Maryland Governor Taxes Rain
by Matthew Boyle 10 Apr 2013, 4:16 PM PDT

Maryland Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley has instituted a tax on citizens for the amount of rain that falls on their property.
The tax, officially known as a "storm water management fee," will be enforced in nine of the state's counties. The state legislature passed it in 2012 purportedly to "raise revenue to cleanup [sic] the Chesapeake Bay," according to MarylandReporter.com.

Former 2012 GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino bashes the tax in a Wednesday afternoon press release. The law "requires individuals, businesses, and even charitable organizations and houses of worship to pay a tax based on the amount of rain that falls on their property and the 'impervious surfaces' on their land," he says.

The tax, mandated by the EPA and enforced locally, will be calculated "through satellite surveillance of your property," the statement claims.

Bongino blasts "out of touch political aristocrats in Maryland will do anything to diminish your economic liberty and starve your wallet while padding theirs."

According to the conservative organization Change Maryland, the rain tax will cost Marylanders about $300 million annually.

Governor O'Malley famously tried increasing taxes to balance the state's budget with little success in 2007. The increase in the top marginal tax rate, known as a "millionaire's tax," cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenue, according to Change Maryland. Between 2007 and 2010, the state population suffered a net loss of 31,000 people.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/10/Maryland-governor-taxes-rain


The Beatles - Taxman

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

[hblueeyes]

A rain tax. So if rain falls on my neighbor and not me, which happens alot more than you think, I would not be taxed. And how would they know?

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Maryland Governor Taxes Rain
by Matthew Boyle 10 Apr 2013, 4:16 PM PDT

Governor O'Malley famously tried increasing taxes to balance the state's budget with little success in 2007. The increase in the top marginal tax rate, known as a "millionaire's tax," cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenue, according to Change Maryland. Between 2007 and 2010, the state population suffered a net loss of 31,000 people.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/10/Maryland-governor-taxes-rain


Read that last part again and you see why they are desperate.


A rain tax. So if rain falls on my neighbor and not me, which happens alot more than you think, I would not be taxed. And how would they know?

It has been known to rain in my backyard and the front be as dry as a bone.

[Jolie Rouge]

Maryland Governor Taxes Rain
by Matthew Boyle 10 Apr 2013, 4:16 PM PDT

Maryland Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley has instituted a tax on citizens for the amount of rain that falls on their property.
The tax, officially known as a "storm water management fee," will be enforced in nine of the state's counties. The state legislature passed it in 2012 purportedly to "raise revenue to cleanup [sic] the Chesapeake Bay," according to MarylandReporter.com.

Former 2012 GOP U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino bashes the tax in a Wednesday afternoon press release. The law "requires individuals, businesses, and even charitable organizations and houses of worship to pay a tax based on the amount of rain that falls on their property and the 'impervious surfaces' on their land," he says.

The tax, mandated by the EPA and enforced locally, will be calculated "through satellite surveillance of your property," the statement claims.

Bongino blasts "out of touch political aristocrats in Maryland will do anything to diminish your economic liberty and starve your wallet while padding theirs."

According to the conservative organization Change Maryland, the rain tax will cost Marylanders about $300 million annually.

Governor O'Malley famously tried increasing taxes to balance the state's budget with little success in 2007. The increase in the top marginal tax rate, known as a "millionaire's tax," cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenue, according to Change Maryland. Between 2007 and 2010, the state population suffered a net loss of 31,000 people.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/10/Maryland-governor-taxes-rain


The Beatles - Taxman

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

BOOM! Dan Bongino serves the GOP establishment with divorce papers
Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop on December 12th, 2013


An open letter to the establishment GOP.

I am serving you with divorce papers. For those who are unaware of what happened, the establishment wing of the Party has openly declared war on the grassroots.

For those who say this fight is hurting the Republican “brand” I reply; it is those on both sides of the aisle who have betrayed their principles in the name of Party, that have destroyed their “brands”.

As for the GOP, we used to stand for something; a lean, effective government, vibrant and robust individual liberty, and a passionate defense of the value of hard work and a commensurate respect for your wages by consistently fighting for your right to keep more of them. Where do you stand now? I know where the grassroots does.

This is our Party and we will demonstrate to the people we hope to represent that there is a group of people out there who refuse to be part of any “managed decline”. We will only be part of a spectacular American resurrection.

America’s best days are ahead and you and your fellow insiders and cronyists and “Party before country” loyalists, on both sides of the aisle, can bathe in your titles and power now but understand that I, and many others, have dedicated our lives to draining the dirty water from the bathtub.

Consider yourself served.


http://therightscoop.com/boom-dan-bongino-serves-the-gop-establishment-with-divorce-papers/

[Jolie Rouge]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1001954_742047219168923_68527073975736680_n.png

(Un)Happy Tax Day! Just let this graphic from the Tax Foundation sink in. What would you have purchased with all of that tax money?

..


Illegal Aliens Claim Billions in Fraudulent Tax Credits Every Year; IRS Knows and ALLOWS It

By Brian Hayes on April 15, 2014

Whew. You finally got your taxes done. Well consider this…

Illegal aliens across America are committing fraud by filing tax returns with an IRS “ITIN” number, and listing children as dependents who live in MEXICO — or who do not even exist at all.

This fraud is costing taxpayers an insane $4.2 BILLION every year. In addition, many of these are felony crimes.

Worst of all your Federal government knows all ab0ut it — yet does nothing to stop it.

Once again it seems illegal aliens have more rights than you do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SrSHB0OfGf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SrSHB0OfGf8

As you consider the insanity of this, you are probably wondering why the Congress has not immediately stopped this outrage once it came to light.

Some have tried. As recently as this past January, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) tried to restore cuts to the pensions of wounded veterans that was disgracefully put in the 2014 budget — by eliminating this outrageous “loophole” for illegal aliens. http://toprightnews.com/?p=746

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid killed the vote on Sessions’ amendment, and then worked out a deal with GOP leader Mitch McConnell to leave the veterans’ cuts — and the illegal aliens’ tax bonanza — in place.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=1790

[Jolie Rouge]

NOT A NEW PROBLEM ...


Subject: Indianapolis TV … Channel 13, WTHR – Tax Loophole for Illegals

Contact your Congressperson and Senator and ASK THEM why this is being tolerated!

You may not read my political email ……. But you really should read this one. This tax loophole dips right into YOUR pocket defrauding you ….. The Honest taxpayer.

YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!

Watch the newscast video and stay calm! http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true

Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!


Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants
Posted on May 11, 2012

Q: Does the IRS pay billions in tax refunds to workers who are in the U.S. illegally?

A: Yes. The Treasury Department’s Inspector General determined that $4.2 billion was paid in 2010, up from less than $1 billion in 2005. Leading Democrats are resisting a bill that would stop future payments.

This is a rare case of an Internet rumor with some substance to it. In fact, it’s shaping up as a major dogfight in Congress. At issue here are the federal child tax credits that can be claimed by persons with dependent children under age 17. Some Democrats are already defending these child tax credit payments that have gone to those without a valid Social Security number, accusing Republicans who want to end them of a heartless attack on children.

Several different versions of this viral email all cite a recent investigative story by an Indianapolis television station, but WTHR-TV is far from the first to notice. The Washington Post and others reported on this last year when the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration issued a report on July 7, 2011.

The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”

The credits currently amount to $1,000 per child, and they are “refundable,” meaning that parents may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.

The IG report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010.

How This Happened

Here we should explain that the IRS routinely seeks to collect both federal income taxes and federal payroll taxes from illegal immigrants, who are required to pay regardless of their immigration status. Because such workers don’t qualify for a valid Social Security number, the IRS issues a nine-digit Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. An ITIN doesn’t authorize the user to work legally in the U.S., and doesn’t entitle him or her to Social Security benefits.

But in addition to collecting taxes, the IRS has increasingly been making payments to low-income workers who pay no federal income tax but qualify for “refundable” credits. Generally, illegal immigrants don’t qualify for Social Security, Medicare or other federal benefits, except for emergency medical treatment in hospitals. And since passage of the 1996 welfare reform law, they have been ineligible for the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit as well.

At that time, Congress required that a valid Social Security number be filed for those claiming the EITC, and that requirement saved an estimated $300 million a year. But Congress did not enact a similar requirement when it created the child tax credit, which went into effect in tax year 1998 at $400 per child, and was increased to $500 the following year.

Initially the credit wasn’t refundable in most cases (only for families who had three or more children and who also met certain income tests). So the issue of illegal workers claiming credits did not arise at first. But the 2001 Bush tax cuts made more parents eligible for refundable credits, and increased the amount in steps to $1,000 per child.

So by 2005, the recent IG report said, 796,000 persons without valid Social Security numbers claimed refundable child credits totaling $924 million, and in 2008, these claims had risen to 1,526,276 persons claiming $2.1 billion in refunds.

Finally, President Obama’s 2009 stimulus measure made temporary changes that had the effect of allowing more parents to claim the refundable credits, or claim greater amounts. And the total grew the following year to the $4.2 billion cited by the IG. Those “temporary” changes now have been extended at least through 2012 by the bill Obama signed in December 2010, which also extended the Bush tax cuts and enacted additional economic stimulus measures including a reduction in federal payroll taxes.

[Jolie Rouge]

What’s to Be Done?

Release of the IG report last year sparked a Republican effort to stop the payments, and an emotional opposition to that effort from Democrats. They argue that the beneficiaries of the credits are in effect the U.S.-born children of the low-income parents who claim the credits.

The effort to stop the payments is also opposed by the National Council of La Raza. In a statement issued in January, it said: “More than 4 million Latino children and their families would face greater hunger, poverty, and other severe hardships if this proposal is enacted.”

Nevertheless, a House bill by Texas Republican Sam Johnson (H.R. 1956) had collected 60 GOP cosponsors as of May 10. It would require that at least one parent file a valid Social Security number to collect a refundable child tax credit. A similar provision reached the House Ways and Means Committee April 18. Committee members approved it by a party-line vote of 22 to 12, with only Republicans voting for and only Democrats voting against it.

During the committee markup, Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia spoke emotionally against the measure and said it “attacks our nation’s children. Our children! The little ones, the innocent ones.”

He argued that those who benefit are “American children,” even though the ones who claim the credit are their working parents.


Rep. Lewis, April 18 2012 : The benefits go to the United States citizen children. My God! Listen! . . . [T]he question must be raised, where is our concern? Where is our compassion? Where is our heart? Where is our soul?

Lewis isn’t entirely correct: Non-citizen children can qualify if they are legally residents and have at least an ITIN. And the requirements aren’t vigorously enforced. The IG report said the IRS management doesn’t demand that parents submit documentation to prove that the children they are claiming actually reside in the U.S., something the IG recommended and IRS management said it lacked legal authority to do. So it is at least possible that some refunds are being paid based on children who aren’t citizens, or who aren’t even living in the U.S.

Also during the Ways and Means markup, Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey said the measure would save only “a very small amount of money” compared with the entire federal budget. It’s true that it wouldn’t save $4.2 billion a year, the figure cited by the IG, at least by official scoring of congressional tax experts. The nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the proposal would reduce federal outlays by $1 billion in 2014, and $7.6 billion over 10 years.

In reality, the savings likely would be larger, however. The JCT projection assumes (as it is required to do) that tax law remains otherwise unchanged. And under current law, the child tax credit is set to fall to $500 in 2013, and the “temporary” liberalization initiated by the 2009 stimulus measure is also set to expire. The savings would be higher if Congress continues the credit at $1,000 per child, as Democrats and Republicans have agreed to do in the past.

Not all Democrats defend the payments. In the Senate, Claire McCaskill of Missouri called the IG report “alarming” and asked the IRS to act. “While the total amount of payments to unauthorized workers is enormous, the trend lines are even more disturbing,” McCaskill wrote in a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman on Sept. 7, 2011. “Wrongful payments of refundable tax credits, should be easy to identify and stop. The law is clear that individuals who are not authorized to work in the United States are not entitled to public benefits.”

But McCaskill is in a tough reelection fight in a conservative state, and other Senate Democrats are not so eager to go after the payments. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is publicly opposed, for one. “I just think the child tax credit is working just fine and there’s no need to punish children,’’ Reid told The Associated Press in early February.

– Brooks Jackson


Sources

Internal Revenue Service, “Child Tax Credit” Publication 972. Accessed 11 May 2012.

“13 Investigates Tax Loophole.” WTHR-TV. 26 Apr 2012.

Rein, Lisa. “Undocumented workers got billions from IRS in tax credits, audit finds” Washington Post. 2 Sep 2011.

Hirsch, Michelle. “IRS Is Paying Illegal Immigrants Billions of Dollars” The Fiscal Times. 2 Sep 2011.

U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits” 7 Jul 2011.

Congressional Budget Office. “Federal Budgetary Implications of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996” Dec 1996.

Esenwein, Gregg A. “The Child Tax Credit” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. 31 Jul 2007.

Internal Revenue Service. “ARRA and the Additional Child Tax Credit” 31 Oct 2011.

National Council of La Raza. “Latinos Oppose Changes to Child Tax Credit Fact Sheet. 30 Jan 2012.

Govtrack.us “H.R. 1956: Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act.” Accessed 11 May 2012.

U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee. “Budget Reconciliation Legislative Recommendations Relating to Social Security Number Requirements for Refundable Portion of the Child Tax Credit” 18 Apr 2012.

U.S. Congress, Ways and Means Committee. “Rep. Lewis on Child Tax Credit” YouTube video posted by committee Democrats. 18 Apr 2012.

U.S. Congress, Ways and Means Committee. “Rep. Pascrell on Child Tax Credit” YouTube video posted by committee Democrats. 18 Apr 2012, posted 19 Apr 2012.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation. “Description Of The Budget Reconciliation Legislative Recommendations Relating To Social Security Number Requirements For The Refundable Portion Of The Child Tax Credit” 17 Apr 2012.

McCaskill, Sen. Claire. Letter to Douglas Shulman, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service. 7 Sep 2011.

Taylor, Andrew. “Payroll tax negotiations off to slow start” The Associated Press. 2 Feb 2012.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/

[Jolie Rouge]

Austin Taxpayers Are Dumbfounded That They Have To Pay For the Services They Voted For
By Michael Hausam

TThis year’s property tax bills for residents of Austin, Texas, have arrived and homeowners are not happy. Property taxes, along with real estate values, are dramatically higher, and concerns about affordability are making waves in the community.

One of the concerns is that the property tax system itself is to blame. The assertion is that homeowners have been unfairly burdened by the increased taxes as a result of burgeoning property values.

But there is more going on than just a dysfunctional tax system. Residents have voted for a bunch of stuff that costs money and now they’re getting billed for it. One homeowner, completely missing the irony of the words coming out of his mouth, said:


I’m at the breaking point.

It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes.

I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better.

But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.

Turns out, you can’t have your park, library, school improvements, light rail and not pay for them, too.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144485-austin-taxpayers-upset-totally-like-whoa-dude-pay-stuff-voted/

comments

Stupid is as stupid does...Liberalism is all about spending other people's money...until you realize that it's your money you're spending and the tax bill comes due...you got what you wanted now you have to pay for it. Shut up and live with it or move.

..

Well this is just hysterical! Those not from Texas probably don't know that Austin I a little blue dot in the center of a very big red state! It is heavily populated by progressive liberals that live in a world of unicorns and paisley skies! So they vote "yes" on all these propositions to make their little island an even greater paradise!.... But now they're all shocked when the "bill" comes due! Time for a dose of reality!

[hblueeyes]

My taxes cost more then I make.I have to sell and move. But in doing research, a house with a second story addition (addition done roughly 40 years ago) is still listed as a one story and they pay about 20% of what my 2 story home (2nd story added 10 years ago) costs me. They have my home listed at $100K over valued. I have done all the massive paperwork to have my assessment changed and all my exemptions added. The problem with property taxes is, it is NOT fair or unbiased. If you are politically connected, you get huge breaks at the expense of others.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

APPLIES TO ALL POLITICIANS

The definition of the word conundrum is � something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:


1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Think about it! That, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st century.

Makes you wonder who is doing the math.

These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current government and cultural environment:

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Funny how that works.

And here's another one worth considering...

2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about it.....

and last but not least,

3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

Am I the only one missing something?

[Jolie Rouge]

This Letter from Ayn Rand Shows a Niece ‘Tough Love’ for Wanting $25. It Will Have Parents Cheering.
By Kyle Becker (1 day ago) | Culture

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ayn_rand.jpg

Ayn Rand. Two of the most divisive words in all of modern literature and philosophy. Her sweeping novel Atlas Shrugged, a dystopian work written 50 years ago, continues to have many prescient observers seeing parallels with a modern America that is going off the rails. Atlas is still an international bestseller – whether or not one has read it and enjoyed it (and more than likely, didn’t read it – still don’t like it).

Wherever one might stand on Rand’s “Objectivist” philosophy, it is the mark of intellectual cowardice to condemn ideas without a fair hearing.

For all the caterwauling about Rand’s “cold” ideology, and the inevitable misinterpretation that her ideal world is a loveless one driven only by achievement, Rand is able to display what she means by “tough love” as evidenced by a letter to a 17-year-old niece requesting a loan of $25 that was printed in a collection Letters of Ayn Rand.

The letter, reprinted in a piece by Distractify, illustrates a point-of-view that many parents who are raising young people nowadays might find really appealing:



To Connie Papurt, AR’s niece, a daughter of Frank’s sister, Agnes Papurt
May 22, 1949

Dear Connie:

You are very young, so I don’t know whether you realize the seriousness of your action in writing to me for money. Since I don’t know you at all, I am going to put you to a test.

If you really want to borrow $25 from me, I will take a chance on finding out what kind of person you are. You want to borrow the money until your graduation. I will do better than that. I will make it easier for you to repay the debt, but on condition that you understand and accept it as a strict and serious business deal. Before you borrow it, I want you to think it over very carefully.

Here are my conditions: If I send you the $25, I will give you a year to repay it. I will give you six months after your graduation to get settled in a job. Then, you will start repaying the money in installments: you will send me $5 on January 15, 1950, and $4 on the 15th of every month after that; the last installment will be on June 15, 1950—and that will repay the total.

Are you willing to do it?

Here is what I want you to think over: Once you get a job, there will always be many things which you will need and on which you might prefer to spend your money, rather than repay a debt. I want you to decide now, in advance, as an honest and responsible person, whether you will be willing and able to repay this money, no matter what happens, as an obligation above and ahead of any other expense.

I want you to understand right now that I will not accept any excuse—except a serious illness. If you become ill, then I will give you an extension of time—but for no other reason. If, when the debt becomes due, you tell me that you can’t pay me because you needed a new pair of shoes or a new coat or you gave the money to somebody in the family who needed it more than I do—then I will consider you as an embezzler. No, I won’t send a policeman after you, but I will write you off as a rotten person and I will never speak or write to you again.

Now I will tell you why I am so serious and severe about this. I despise irresponsible people. I don’t want to deal with them or help them in any way. An irresponsible person is a person who makes vague promises, then breaks his word, blames it on circumstances and expects other people to forgive it. A responsible person does not make a promise without thinking of all the consequences and being prepared to meet them.

You want $25 for the purpose of buying a dress; you tell me that you will get a job and be able to repay me. That’s fine and I am willing to help you, if that is exactly what you mean. But if what you mean is: give me the money now and I will repay it if I don’t change my mind about it—then the deal is off. If I keep my part of the deal, you must keep yours, just exactly as agreed, no matter what happens.

I was very badly disappointed in Mimi and Marna [Docky]. When I first met Mimi, she asked me to give her money for the purpose of taking an art course. I gave her the money, but she did not take the art course. I supported Marna for a year—for the purpose of helping her to finish high school. She did not finish high school. I will take a chance on you, because I don’t want to blame you for the actions of your sisters. But I want you to show me that you are a better kind of person.

I will tell you the reasons for the conditions I make: I think that the person who asks and expects other people to give him money, instead of earning it, is the most rotten person on earth. I would like to teach you, if I can, very early in life, the idea of a self-respecting, self-supporting, responsible, capitalistic person. If you borrow money and repay it, it is the best training in responsibility that you can ever have.

I want you to drop—if you have it in your mind—the idea that you are entitled to take money or support from me, just because we happen to be relatives. I want you to understand very clearly, right now, when you are young, that no honest person believes that he is obliged to support his relatives. I don’t believe it and will not do it. I cannot like you or want to help you without reason, just because you need the help. That is not a good reason. But you can earn my liking, my interest and my help by showing me that you are a good person.

Now think this over and let me know whether you want to borrow the money on my conditions and whether you give me your word of honor to observe the conditions. If you do, I will send you the money. If you don’t understand me, if you think that I am a hard, cruel, rich old woman and you don’t approve of my ideas—well, you don’t have to approve, but then you must not ask me for help.

I will wait to hear from you, and if I find out that you are my kind of person, then I hope that this will be the beginning of a real friendship between us, which would please me very much.

Your aunt,

While some prefer to dismiss Rand as a “crazy-ass aunt,” there are plenty of parents who are witnessing the irrational self-exploration that has driven millions of young people to rack up exorbitant student loans, only to find a job market non-conducive to achieving their dreams.

Whether or not one chalks this dire situation up to the eternal wiles of youth, or misguided state intervention churning out a miseducated “intellectual proletariat” ill-prepared for the demands of real life, is left up to the reader to decide.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/233712-letter-ayn-rand-shows-niece-tough-love-wanting-25-will-parents-cheering