Tag Archives: taxes

Partisanship

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Seib had a piece on this in the context of gerrymandering. Along the way, he had these as examples of partisanship:

Yet when the bill [the $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill] came to a final vote, six of the state’s [Michigan’s] seven Republicans voted against it. Nor was the phenomenon limited to Republicans. Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib also voted against it, in part because Congress wasn’t also passing a giant social-spending and climate-change package that she and other progressive Democrats have been demanding.

Seib expressed surprise/dismay at those votes, along with the fact that 13 Republicans who did vote for it came in for some opprobrium. Seib apparently missed the part where bill has little to do with actual infrastructure and much to do with “social justice” questions, “green-ness” (just not enough to suit Tlaib). It was a bill worthy of voting against.

Seib also missed here: lawmakers try to perform their most basic tasks: prevent a government shutdown by passing a spending bill, and prevent a national debt crisis by raising the debt ceiling.

Were Congressmen truly concerned about their districts and then our nation ahead of other considerations, they’d produce a Spending Reduction bill, not a spending bill; they’d lower tax rates, which actually increases revenues to Government; and they’d pass a debt ceiling raise large enough only to cover already committed spending, and then only on condition the prior two items also are passed.

More Disingenuosity of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Buried in the Progressive-Democrats’ reconciliation bill that they’re so desperate to hurry up and get passed before anyone can peruse it is this payoff to unions:

The bill the House passed would allow union members to deduct up to $250 of dues from their tax bills. The deduction is “above the line,” meaning filers can exclude the cost of dues from their gross income. In other words, union dues would get the same treatment now reserved for things like insurance premiums and retirement contributions.

The Progressive-Democrat Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, claims it’s no payoff at all; it’s because

Unions are the backbone of the middle class. This legislation would put money back in the pockets of working families.

Never mind that union membership in the entire private sector is only a bit over 6%, not close to any sort of middle class backbone.

What the Progressive-Democrat carefully ignores, too, is that absent the vast increase in taxes included in the reconciliation bill, there’d be no need to put money back in the pockets of working families because that money wouldn’t be leaving those pockets in the first place.

The WSJ has the right of it:

The true goal of the tax break is to fill union coffers by making dues less of a deterrent to joining. The incentive would be particularly strong in 23 states without right-to-work laws, where workers pay partial union fees whether or not they’re members.

(Keep in mind, too, that the Progressive-Democrats also are pushing legislation that would eliminate right-to-work laws in those 23 States and nation-wide.)

Bread and circuses. Vote buying.

Disingenuosity of a Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that last spring’s reconciliation bill included an expanded child tax credit, which payments were automatic monthly payments that went to families without income as well as to those with income.

Progressive-Democrats, in the current reconciliation bill, want to make those credits permanent, and still automatic. Progressive-Democrats also want to start paying out a universal basic income to all Americans. But, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) is denying that the child tax credit is a step toward a universal basic income.

As constructed, though, this “credit,” paid automatically regardless of “need,” is itself income, and given the breadth of Americans who receive it, it’s virtually universal all by itself.

And, of course, it’s income.

What is Hoyer’s limiting principle that proves this child tax credit is not a step on the road to a fully universal basic income? What hard principle prevents him from changing his mind on this, or that prevents any of his colleagues from changing this “credit,” later?

Hoyer has none. He’s simply being disingenuous when he claims the nearly universal child tax credit isn’t a step—a huge step, nearly spanning the gap, I say—toward a universal basic income.

Zeroing In

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the Biden-Harris administration claims is all it wants to do with its “new and improved” personal bank account monitoring scheme.

…banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions would be required to report annually on accounts with deposits and withdrawals worth more than $10,000….

Here’s Biden-Harris’ Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen:

Today’s new proposal reflects the administration’s strong belief that we should zero in on those at the top of the income scale who don’t pay the taxes they owe, while protecting American workers by setting the bank account threshold at $10,000 and providing an exemption for wage earners like teachers and firefighters

Because some American workers are more equal than others of us, and so more deserving of protection from this government spying.

On top of that is the Biden-Harris/Yellen disingenuousness and that of their Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate that this is solely about tracking down those Evil Rich Tax Dodgers. Even at $10,000, though, those Evil Ones would need hundreds, if not thousands, of bank accounts to get down to sizes even approaching that $10k threshold. No, this move remains centered on the prurient interest those peopling our government have in the private doings of us common citizens.

After all, rather than spying on those of us average Americans of whom this administration disapproves (remember how narrow the “exemption” really is), the government could simply audit those Evil Rich individuals. No peeking in windows necessary that way.

Besides, I have it on good authority that the men and women in our government already know what income has gone unreported and how much tax is owed. From that, those worthies also already know where that missing income is and who owes it. If anyone.

Misconception

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox Business article purportedly explaining how the new international price-fixing tax agreement is supposed to work, there exists this misconception, or at least it would be a misconception in a free and free market collection of nations.

The deal is designed to target corporations that employ a litany of tactics to reduce their tax liability, often by shifting profits, and revenues, to low-tax countries, such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Ireland, regardless of where the sale was made. The practice by American and foreign multinationals costs the US tens of billions of dollars each year, according to the Treasury Department.

Of course, the practice does no such thing, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen demonstrates her monarchist that is Big Government I mean liberal blinders when she makes such a claim.

Since the money isn’t the government’s, its absence costs the government nothing. The practice does, though, save American consumers and other end-users tens of billions of dollars each year, primarily in the form of lower prices, but also in greater R&D and more innovation—which is lower prices later. The practice also generates more business activity, both from existing businesses and from more startups, which increases economic competition—which is lower prices both in the mid- and longer-term.

The practice also attracts businesses to the nations winning the tax race to the bottom, which increases economic activity in those nations, which increases jobs and citizen prosperity; and that increased economic activity also increases competition in those tax race winning nations—which reduces prices for those nations’ citizens.

And all of that increased economic activity produces increased revenues for the various governments, obviating the need for any sort of price-fixing tax agreement.

Only an illiberal—a modern-day liberal—could love higher taxes, bigger government, and the resulting increased government dependency.