Tag Archives: taxes

Chamber of Commerce and the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

The US Chamber of Commerce decided in 2020 to endorse a number of first-term Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen on the theory that Party would control Congress after the elections and in the expectation, tacitly agreed to if only by their silence, by those Party endorsees. Fifteen of those twenty-three first-termer endorsees were reelected.

So, how’d they do regarding Chamber of Commerce wishes and expectations?

Every one of the 15 voted for the $1.9 trillion spending bill in March 2020, despite Chamber opposition to sweeping jobless benefits that stoked labor shortages and stimulus checks that fed inflation. They also voted for the PRO Act, a radical pro-union rewrite of labor law.

That’s no-for-two, so far.

Now comes President Joe Biden’s (D) Build Reduced Back Act, just passed by the Party-controlled Senate and tossed over to the House, which likely will vote on it by the end of this week—that’s tomorrow, or maybe (unlikely) Saturday.

The chance of Democratic defections is slim. Despite aggressive Chamber lobbying, all 15 rolled over for the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill last year, so they are unlikely to oppose something that has Senator Joe Manchin’s (D, WV) approval.

Did the Chamber miss? No, those folks knew what they would be getting.

…most of the Chamber Democrats had a voting record of hostility to business.
Twenty had voted in the previous Congress for a bill to abolish right-to-work states. Eighteen voted for a $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. Nearly all had publicly expressed support for scrapping the 2017 corporate tax reform, and for new climate, banking and healthcare regulations.

This is what anyone can expect from a Party politician. And from a political power-driven weather vane Chamber of Commerce, which has shown through its incompetence that it is no friend of American business or businesses.

Lies of the Progressive-Democratic Party Politicians

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and President Joe Biden (D) tout the just passed (I ass-u-me; I’m writing this on Sunday morning) Build Reduced Back Act as not raising taxes on Americans with incomes less than $400k per year. Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) agrees with that by her relative silence on the matter.

However, their very own Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates the lie of that claim.

Just the News aggregated those data:

Federal taxes will increase by $1.9 billion on those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and by $10.8 billion on those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 in 2023.
Overall average tax rates would increase from 20.3% to 20.6% in 2023 alone, according to the analysis.

A three-tenths of a percentage point increase might seem like chump change to those politicians, but they need to explain that increase to the large fraction—majority?—of Americans who already live paycheck to paycheck and now will have that “chump change” taken out of their pockets in addition to the taxes they already pay, along with the rising costs of the food, energy, and housing with which they’re already confronted.

Tax Compliance and Pressure

Posted on by
Reply

This time, pressure on another nation to comply with a global minimum tax regime. The Biden administration is unhappy with Hungary for standing in the way of the EU’s agreeing a global (or at least Western World) regime that would contain a minimum tax level. That minimum level was designed to eliminate tax rate competition among nations.

On Friday the Treasury said the US is withdrawing from a 1979 bilateral tax treaty with Hungary.

Eliminating that nearly 45 year agreement actually is a boon to Hungary, though, rather than pressure, since Yellen and the Biden administration have withdrawn a tool for pressuring that nation.

Never mind that pressuring Hungary on minimum tax compliance is economically idiotic—the race to the bottom of tax rates is a race all nations should be striving to win. Or at least those nations that believe their own citizens aren’t drooling imbeciles and actually can make their own decisions concerning what to do with the money lower tax rates would leave in their hands rather than being forced to give their money into the hands of remote bureau- and technocrats.

Scofflaw Blue States

Posted on by
Reply

And guess who gets to pick up the tab. You get three, and the first two don’t count. Here are the scofflaws:

At least four Democratic-led states with budget surpluses this year have chosen not to fully repay the federal government for money borrowed to fund unemployment benefits, a move that will impose increased charges on businesses to help make up the difference.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York have directed surplus funds to social programs and taxpayer rebates, among other causes, leaving unpaid debts to the federal government ranging from tens of millions of dollars to more than $15 billion.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party at the State level treating loans as grants. Of course, that’s entirely consistent with Party’s attitude toward student loans, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

Ken Pokalsky, Business Council of New York State Vice President:

We’re going to be at elevated levels of taxes for a decade[.]

Yep.

A Small Tweak and a Large…Tweak

Posted on by
Reply

In his Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, Travis Nix reminds us of this tidbit regarding IRS private letters that’s buried in President Joe Biden’s (D) latest budget proposal:

IRS private letter rulings—the agency’s written answers to individual taxpayers’ questions, which the IRS itself says cannot be relied on as precedent.

Here’s a small tweak: make the IRS stand by its rulings by making those rulings binding on the IRS, applicable to all taxpayers, and precedential. And require the IRS to answer the question that was asked—to issue its letter ruling—within 30 days of the question being asked, or failing to do so authorizes, as a matter of tax law, the questioner to answer the question (formally, via its tax return) in its own way.

Nix’ overall op-ed was centered on another item buried in that tax portion of the Biden-Harris budget: a lengthening of the time the IRS has to reach into the past to look at inadvertent tax errors in a taxpayer’s filing. The proposed time would be extended from three years into the past to six years.

However [emphasis added].

Since the IRS already has unlimited time to audit the returns of companies that seem to have deliberately omitted income they knew was taxable, the new regulation would largely target unknowing omissions that result from unclear regulations.

That brings me to a large tweak. The whole question could be entirely eliminated by rewriting our byzantine tax code to have no income tax at all on businesses and to have a single, low, flat individual income tax rate on all income regardless of source and with no subsidies, deductions, credits, or any other “adjustments.”

Such a code would allow individual tax filings to fit on the proverbial post card (but maybe stick it into an envelope for mailing, for privacy’s stake):

Line 1: How much income did you have this tax year? ______

Line 2: Insert income tax due ([10]% of Line 1):           ______