Tag Archives: taxes

Fair Share of Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

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.

On the other hand.

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.

The top 1%—Bernie’s second favorite target, at that Town Hall and everywhere else he speaks—pay

37.3% of all income taxes paid during the same year

That works out to $545.8 billion.

Those are dollars.  Here are the tax rates actually paid by those two groups.

the top 1% paid at a 26.9% individual income tax rate
the bottom 50% paid at a 3.7% rate

The rap on President Donald Trump’s and the Republican Party’s tax reform is that it gave the bulk of the tax cut to those Evil 1%.

Well, duh.  The reform’s tax cut here was an across the board reduction in rate and a consolidation of brackets, so that all taxpayers got essentially the same reduction in rates—with many middle-class taxpayers getting pushed into a lower bracket for an even greater reduction in rate.  However, those 1%-ers remain in the highest tax bracket, they still pay the most, by far, dollar amount—and so of course they saw the largest dollar reduction.

Beyond that, the personal income tax rate reduction is only temporary, and if the rates and brackets revert to their previous levels, it’ll be the middle-class that’s hardest hit.  Nevertheless, Progressive-Democrats in Congress refuse to allow the personal tax reductions to become permanent so they can have a talking point about their own second favorite target for the 2020 elections.

From that, it’s only natural that Sanders and his Progressive-Democrat cronies constantly avoid (refuse?) saying how much is “fair share,” just that it’s more, more, more, gimme, gimme.

Progressive-Democrats are the modern epitome of an 19th century railroad magnate:

Anything that ain’t nailed down is mine, and if I can pry it loose, it ain’t nailed down.

Tax that Rich Man Behind the Tree

Posted on by
Reply

Now the Progressive-Democrats, in their fever pitch to increase taxes, want to tax phantom profits.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) [is] reviving plans to make capital gains taxes due annually….

Another Progressive-Democrat, Jon Summers (ex-Communications Director for ex-Senator Harry Reid (D, NV)) rationalized this chimera tax this way:

We’re spending way more money, billions of dollars more, a year than what we are actually bringing in in revenue. We’ve got a debt of $22 trillion, a record debt that has only skyrocketed under this administration. So, Democrats are trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity back[.]

No, they’re not.  They just want to tax anything they can dream up. Were they serious about trying to come up with a solution to bring some sanity, they’d look for ways to cut spending—but that’s literally inconceivable to them.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of revenue flows—know that there are no gains, capital or otherwise, unless and until the underlying asset is disposed.  Until then, any perceived change in value is nothing more than hope or dismay.

Most Americans—the vast majority of us with a sane understanding of the American sense of property—know that the asset, the unrealized gain or loss, and the eventually realized gain or loss are those of the asset owner; they’re private property.

Sadly, Wyden and his cronies don’t believe that.  They act as though the asset and the associated money is Government’s, and those men of Government only let a citizen use the things for a time.

Oversight

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Richard Neal (D, MA), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, has demanded the IRS turn over some years of President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax returns.  He centered his demand thusly:

“Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, has a duty to conduct oversight of departments and officials,” Mr Neal said.

That’s an interesting argument. If it’s coequality that creates the oversight duty, then the coequal Executive Branch has an identical duty to conduct oversight of House (and Senate) Committees and members.

Hmm….

A Thought on Medicare for All

Posted on by
Reply

University of Massachusetts-Amherst Economics Professor and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute, Robert Pollin, had a thought on this.

Of course, so do I.

Pollin opened his tract with this:

All Americans would be able to get care from their chosen providers without having to pay premiums, deductibles or copayments.

No, we’ve already seen the lie in this. We experienced the broken, falsely presented promise with the sales job on Obamacare and the oft-repeated lie that if we liked our doctor, we could keep him and the associated lie of lower premiums.

Roughly 30 million people, 9% of the US population, are uninsured. Another 26%, 86 million people, are underinsured…

With millions of those Americans thrown off insurance plans they preferred because Obamacare made them illegal. This “economist” carefully elided that small fact.

We propose that all businesses that currently purchase health insurance for their employees be mandated to pay 92% of what they now spend into Medicare for All—saving 8% of their health-care expenditures.

Thereby throwing even more people off the plans they prefer.

This person also ignores another salient fact: the complete failure that is an existing single-payer plan, the VA.

And one more: even now, folks with surgical needs or prompt-but-expensive care needs or any other non-cookie cutter needs in other nations’ “free for all” health programs come here for those needs’ satisfaction rather than bear the interminable delays in getting that care in their nations’ programs.

Pied-à-Terre Tax

Posted on by
Reply

New York City wants one, and The Wall Street Journal, among a host of other folks, think it’s a terrible idea.

The idea is what the politicians are calling a pied-à-terre tax—which is French for “give me your money, fat cat.”

I’m not sure I agree with the WSJ.  I see the pied-à-terre tax as a vast boon to New Yorkers, and to others.

a Journal analysis this week suggested it could crash New York’s luxury property market.

There actually are strong upsides to this tax. Fewer of New York’s rich folks will be hurt by the SALT cap on Federal income tax deductions as they leave this high and higher tax State for better States.

To the extent the WSJ‘s analysis is accurate, the luxury property market’s crash will have cascade effects that will make all housing property cheaper—and more affordable—for middle- and lower-class folks in New York at large as well as in New York City.  And that will have its own knock-on effect: even fewer people impacted by the SALT cap.

I’m having trouble seeing the downside to NYC’s pied-à-terre tax.