In spades. They’re in a race to bankrupt us. Or, as The Wall Street Journalput it,
The Democratic presidential primary is turning into a bidding war.
Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) has broken out of the starting gate with an offer of forgiveness of $640 billion in student debt for our votes.
Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT), though, has caught her at the first turn: he’s offering $1.6 trillion (yes, that’s with a ‘t’) in canceled student debt plus tuition-free “public” colleges.
But it is intended to be a chain-link fence. It’s not intended to keep folks out, though, but like its Big Brother, it is intended to “encourage” folks to stay in.
Connecticut has expanded its mansion tax on homes. Here’s how it works. On sale, Connecticut taxmen will exact from the seller a 2.25% tax on the value of the sale that exceeds $2.5 million. This is an increase from the already existing “conveyance tax” of 1.25%, but it adds a fillip: if the seller stays in the State for a suitably long time after the sale (“suitable” being defined by the State’s politicians), he’ll get the money back as a tax credit. If he leaves Connecticut for greener and friendlier pastures too soon to suit those politicians, too bad—he loses those 2.25%.
Free Stuff, that is. Here’s the latest from Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, MA). In addition to all the other free stuff she wants us to have, now she wants free child care.
[F]amilies living below the 200% poverty threshold (roughly $51,500 for a family of four) would get free access to child care and early education….
With this, Warren wants folks who, by her own definition, are not poverty-ridden to get free child care. Notice, too, she’s lumped in with child care her “early education”—that’s her tacit admission that our public schools no longer provide actual education; they’re just child care facilities.
[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.
Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands. “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”
Japan is examining MMT in its debate over its upcoming sales tax increase [emphasis added].
Some members of Parliament, led by ruling conservative-party lawmakers, argue Japan doesn’t need higher taxes because the country’s inflation is less than 1%. The theory suggests tax increases are needed only when inflation is out of control.
Notice that: MMT says increasing taxes is a means of controlling inflation. The idea is that taking money away from the citizens reduces demand and so inflationary pressure. There are a couple of problems with this concept. One is that government revenue gets spent so Keynes’ aggregate demand goes unchanged, except for a bit of Government-as-middle-man friction.
The Progressive-Democrats, and too many Republicans, in Congress are trying to sort out what should be done about expiring tax breaks.
Here are some of the expiring or about to expire tax breaks:
incentives for biodiesel production
deductibility of private mortgage insurance
tax credits for investing in low-income areas
employers’ family-leave plans
expansion of the earned-income tax credit
The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, if extremely difficult politically: let them all expire. Our Federal tax code should not be used for social engineering; it should be used solely for its constitutionally mandated purpose: to fund our Federal government.
…and one Progressive-Democrat’s tax proposal. Although, the fact is that these effects aren’t unique to Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, NM): the trend of effects are the outcomes of all the Progressive-Democratic Party’s proposals, differing only in detail.
Warren’s particular proposal is to tax business profits above $100 million at 7%. Here are some outcomes of such a thing, according to the Tax Foundation, with the FoxBusiness cited. A tax like this would
reduce incentives to invest, so GDP would shrink by ~1.9% over the long-term
Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) says the rich should pay more taxes than they do already and that if only they paid “their fair share” Party’s socialist dream programs could all be paid for. He repeated that demand on last Monday’s Town Hall with Fox News.
According to data released recently by the Internal Revenue Service, compiled by the Tax Foundation, the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid about $43.9 billion in income taxes 2016—which accounts for roughly 3% of all income taxes paid.