Tag Archives: taxes

Not an Iron Curtain

Posted on by
Reply

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%.

Governor Ned Lamont (D) made the nature of his chain-link fence explicit. He said that the tax is a

penalty when people whose homes are valued over $2.5 million sell their homes and leave the state.

There’s also a related question: with Connecticut making it so hard to leave, why would anyone want to go there in the first place?

It’s not all bad, though.  The center of Connecticut is only 35 miles from Massachusetts and only 55 miles from Rhode Island and New York.  To the extent there are jobs at all in Connecticut, those are easy commutes, as any Angelino, Metroplex resident, or New Jersey-ite knows.

The Land of the Free

Posted on by
2

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.

More importantly than that, though, is how she would pay for all of this.

Warren proposed using money from the ultra-millionaire tax that she announced at the end of January. Under the tax, anyone with more than $50 million in assets would pay a 2% tax. For those who have assets valued at $1 billion or higher, it would be a 3% tax.

That might—might—cover expenses for the first few years.  But Warren has no clue of what to do next (beyond, I assume, the usual Progressive-Democrat “solution” of raise taxes some more).  Warren has no clue where to get the money for all this free stuff (recall that she’s using her tax on the evil rich for other spending, too) when we don’t have any more rich because they’ve been taxed out of existence, no one aspires to be rich anymore (with the associated loss of economic activity and steady impoverishment of our population as a whole), the few remaining rich have moved their money overseas (and perhaps joined their money).

But hey—it’s Free Stuff today.  It’s votes today.

More important even than all of that is the moral damage she proposes to do to us Americans.  No longer are we to be responsible individuals, we’re just to be come wards of the State.  Her State.  Her State will supplant our individual morality with her own version; her State will strip us of our individual responsibilities, our individual duties.  Her State will do those.

Elizabeth Warren’s State is a socialist State.  John Adams wrote more than one hundred years ago that the nation of our Constitution required a virtuous, moral people to run it.  That’s not Elizabeth Warren’s State.

You’ve Made Enough Money

Posted on by
Reply

The New Jersey governor says so, and he wants to raise the income tax on the rich and the not-yet rich—those making more than $1 million per annual year*—by almost a full per centage point, to 10.75%.

Because, he argues.

So far, even the Progressive-Democrat-run legislature is demurring from that move, but the governor seems poised to veto a budget that doesn’t have the tax increase.

Give it up, the Progressive-Democrat governor says. I have better uses for your money than you do, the Progressive-Democrat governor says.

 

*Think $1 million is a lot?  It is, but not so much in Trenton.  On a cost of living basis, that would be worth $1.4 million in northern Texas.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[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.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

A Foolish Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has one.  She’s

proposing that large employers pay women on an equal basis with their male counterparts or face government fines, seeking a sweeping shift in the way the nation addresses pay inequity.

She wants to impose a 1% tax on “large” companies’ profit for every 1% disparity in pay.  The size of the disparity is an open question, though.  The favorite number of the Progressive-Democrats is that women are paid in the neighborhood of 70-75 cents for each dollar a man is paid for the same work; although the number Harris bandied was 80 cents.  That would make the Harris Payroll Tax run 20% or 25%-30% of profit.  The more valid, empirically derived number, though, puts that disparity between 0 and 7 cents less for the woman than the man, with a heavy lean toward the 7.  This more accurate number actually presumes to correct for time in the workforce, experience level on the job in question, and so on.

Beyond that, the Harris Payroll Tax is just plain bad finance.  Companies—small as well as large—pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wage they pay, and those same companies tie perks like health coverage, paid time off, bonuses, etc to the wage they pay.  An increase in wage would carry with it those added payroll costs.

It’d be cheaper for the companies to pay the Harris Payroll Tax than it would to raise the wage paid the woman.

Further, Harris would

put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination.

Because, typical of today’s Progressive-Democrats, we’re all guilty until proven innocent.  Especially when it’s difficult even to define the crime.