Tag Archives: taxes

Taxing the Rich

Posted on by
Reply

Washington State is at it.

Washington state multibillionaires would pay a wealth tax under a proposal that got a public hearing before the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Senate Bill 5426 would impose a 1% tax on intangible financial property such as stocks, and bonds, futures contracts, and publicly traded options. The first $1 billion of assessed wealth would be exempt from the tax, which “equals one percent multiplied by a resident’s taxable worldwide wealth.”

Leave aside questions of the legitimacy of taxing an American citizen’s foreign-held wealth, intangible or otherwise. The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Sam Hunt (D, Olympia) has given the larger game away.

This is a great attempt to bring fairness to our tax structure which is pretty upside down with the lower income paying 17% of their income in taxes and the upper 1% paying 1% or less[.]

That is pretty upside down.

Another solution would be to lower the tax rates on those with the lower income. However, that would involve lowering tax rates rather than increasing them, and lowering tax rates is completely inconceivable to Progressive-Democrats.

Update: Some have interpreted my “lower the tax rates on those with the lower income to mean lowering income tax rates. Washington has no income tax, only sales taxes (State and local), business taxes, and property taxes. Sales and property taxes are highly regressive and hit the lower income folks the hardest, the former directly through taking a far higher per centage of their income and the latter through driving up the cost of housing, whether owning or renting.

Lowering business taxes (eliminating them, I say) would foster job growth, which would benefit the lower- and no-income folks the most.

A Good Idea?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats are looking at “adjusting” Party’s proposed child tax credit in order to appease Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV).

Some Democrats have started exploring how to pare back their proposed expansion of the child tax credit in ways that are aimed at winning the critical support of Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), according to people familiar with the matter.
Among the possibilities: Reducing the size of the credit’s expansion and limiting which Americans are eligible for it, according to the people.

Tweaking to appease a single Senator. Never mind any effort at looking for bipartisan support.

If the child tax credit, in any form, were a good idea, the Progressive-Democrats would put it into a separate, stand-alone bill and put that up for debate and a vote.

It’s instructive that Party won’t do that. It’s instructive that Party can’t even conceive of such a move.

Monthly Child-Tax Credit Payments at an End

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal wrote about the end of the child tax credit payments and the impact on families’ financial cushion during last year’s Wuhan Virus-related dislocation. What Ensign and Rubin missed in their piece, though, is what those payments actually are, and their upcoming impact.

Those monthly child-tax credit payments were advances on 2021’s income tax refunds. In addition to the cash flow (not income) drop from the payments’ cessation, payback of those advances on or about mid-April (or later, should the IRS decide to delay the due date for tax returns, again) will be a cast iron bitch for those lower income families whom the Progressive-Democrats were pretending to help with the advances.

Just a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

California is running a very large budget surplus—$31 billion worth—and the men and women of that State’s government really and truly don’t know what to do with it. Especially since the voter-approved Gann Limit doesn’t let the government run that big a surplus.

Here’s a thought.

Maybe pay a tax refund to the citizens of California, and sock the rest of the surplus away in a State rainy-day fund.

Nah. Waste of money. Those citizens would only waste it on their own needs and wants, rather than spending it properly. And who needs a rainy-day fund? California has droughts.

One More Reason

Posted on by
Reply

The last two administrations have dumped $3.5 trillion of supposed Wuhan Virus relief funds into our economy since the virus situation began in early 2020.

Now we’re learning that almost $100 billion of it has been stolen. That doesn’t seem like a large per centage of the total. However, as numbers have a quality all their own, and while those $100 billion are a small per centage of the trillions, they would have had their own use. Fighting the Wuhan Virus’ entry into our nation via our southern border, for instance, by building more of the wall that Biden-Harris has been so desperate to stop. Generating more—many, many more—of the home tests that Biden-Harris has been lying about producing. Plusing up our police forces so as to reduce the rate of crime that Progressive-Democrats like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) insist are no big deal and that other Leftists insist is justified reparations. Plusing up our military. The list goes on.

In the end, this is just one more reason to not use the Federal government to handle, centrally, such handouts. Instead, make block grants to the States.

That won’t stop the graft of this sort, but it at least would divide the money up across the States so that it would be harder to steal, and the governments making the disbursements would be closer to the problem—and to their constituents for accountability.

Better yet would be to tot up the total of all Federal transfers to each State and roll those into block grants—no strings attached—to the States. Then reduce the size of the block grants each subsequent year by 10% of that first year’s block until no more monies are being transferred to the States from Federal coffers.

After all, those monies, the Federal coffers, are the tax monies sent to the Feds by each State’s citizens. Let each State keep those tax funds in the first place, and eliminate the middle man. Each State will use the money more efficiently and more directly for that State’s citizen needs and wants and not for another State’s purposes.

The Federal government should collect, and use, only that which it needs for the only Constitutionally mandated purposes extant: to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. That general Welfare, too, is enumerated in (and limited to) the purposes delineated in the next 16 clauses of Art I, Sect 8; the last clause being not a spending purpose but an authorization for Congress to make specific laws for specific spending.