Greatest Hits- High Cigarette Taxes Backfire Once Again: Illinois Latest State to Collide with Reality

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

High Cigarette Taxes Backfire Once Again: Illinois Latest State to Collide with Reality– Once again, cigarette taxes fail, but that won’t stop regressives from proposing them!

Who would have thought that higher cigarette taxes would reduce tax revenue?  Well, anyone with a brain would have predictecd that, so I guess that’s why regressives went and did it anyway.  Hot Air has the details…

With some time having passed to let the cash cow fatten, we should check back in and see what the fine citizens of the Land of Lincoln are doing with their new found largesse. I do hope they’re not all getting fat and lazy now that all of the state’s fiscal problems have been solved. Ahhh… happy days.

When Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a bill adding another dollar a pack to the state’s cigarette tax, law enforcement leaders knew they had their hands full.

John Chambers, head investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, says cigarette smuggling now rivals illegal drug smuggling, and street gangs are getting involved.

“Keep in mind this is very similar to drug activity, smuggling drugs, and there could be concealed compartments, false floors in the bed of a truck, much like drugs, all packed with cigarettes,” Chambers said.

In Cook County, the tax on smokes is now $4.66 a pack. In Indiana it’s $0.995. Missouri checks in at $0.17. Who could possibly have seen this coming?

In a recent study, University of Illinois at Chicago professor David Merriman found 75 percent of cigarettes in Chicago didn’t have the proper tax stamps. He says the most recent increase will likely have a big impact along state lines.

“For the ordinary everyday smoker, many of them have already found ways to avoid the tax. I think it’s going to be a much bigger issue in areas where the state border makes it a big difference,” Merriman said.

A clerk at a tobacco shop in Hammond, Ind., less than a mile from the state line, says business has doubled since the latest increase began at the end of June.

How many times does this have to happen before the regressives see that it doesn’t work?  This humble blogger has been covering this type of thing since 2009.  Like this…

Native Americans are exempt from cig taxes.  Guess what?  People go to them and buy their smokes!  That seems simple enough, but as usual, there is more here.

The tax hike, the first in six years, is expected to earn the state between $200 million and $300 million. A pack of premium cigarettes in New York City now costs $7 or $8; prices would rise to above $9. Opponents of the tax increase argue that higher prices would drive smokers to seek ways to evade the law and purchase cheaper cigarettes from smugglers or in neighboring states, blunting potential revenue gains for the state. “It’s a black market gold mine,” a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, E.J. McMahon, said of the proposed tax. “You have to invest resources in scores of attorneys, cops, and auditors, who are all part of the tax enforcement you need.”

“By raising cigarette taxes you help fund the mob,” the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, said. “Cigarettes are easier than liquor, as they’re lighter and smaller per container. It leads to smuggling and smuggling is done best by organized crime.”

And there’s even more…

Mr. Norquist said New York’s proximity to states with lower taxes would lead smokers to cross the border to buy cigarettes, reducing tax revenue below state projections.

New York has seen significant increases in its cigarette tax rates before. In 2002, New York City’s cigarette tax increased to $1.50 from $0.08, as part of an initiative by Mayor Bloomberg to encourage smokers to give up the habit. Although the taxes produced an increase in city and state revenue, some smokers took illegal measures to avoid paying the new tax, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

A 2007 report by the Independent Budget Office, a nonpartisan city agency that analyzes the city’s finances, found that 27% of city smokers and 34% of upstate smokers sometimes bought “under-taxed” cigarettes in 2006. These smokers avoided the tax by buying cigarettes from other states, ordering cigarettes over the Internet, and purchasing cigarettes at Indian reservations. The city lost an estimated $40 million in tax revenue as a result of cigarette tax evasion in 2006, according to the report.

“It encourages people not to be ripped off,” the founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, Audrey Silk, said of cigarette taxes. “Any consumer who’s so abused will look for ways to avoid it, making outlaws out of normally law-abiding citizens.”

 And here…

Apparently, raising taxes on tobacco products is falling out of favor with state governments…

According to Patrick Gleason, director of state affairs for the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, tobacco has not been the revenue boon states that have increased cigarette taxes had hoped.

“The lack of interest in raising tobacco taxes this year can be attributed to the fact that tobacco taxes have indisputably proven to be a dubious and declining source of revenue,” Gleason told TheDC. “From 2003-2007, 16 of 59 tobacco tax hikes fell short of revenue projections.”

Here in Washington D.C., for example, the city’s 2009 $0.50 tax hike resulted in a severe drop in expected revenue. In 2010, the District of Columbia’s chief financial officer Natwar Gandhi reported to the mayor that the projected government intake was over $15 million below what they had initially estimated.

Gleason pointed out that for revenue, cigarette taxes are proving to be a loser.

“New Jersey raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007, yielding $52 million less than Garden State lawmakers anticipated and $22 million less than was generated prior to that tax hike,” Gleason told TheDC. “Over the past decade it has become clear that tobacco taxes are an unreliable source of revenue and one in which no budget should depend on.”

And here…

  For the latest, NY State is lamenting the fact that their cigarette tax revenue is far below expectations…

The Empire State is struggling to bring in additional tax revenue it projected it would gain from efforts to stop smokers from buying untaxed  cigarettes on Indian Reservations, reports the New York Post:

The state’s tax collectors were recently calling around to convenience-store owners, wondering what was up. The $130 million in extra tax that Albany was expecting from a change in the law about cigarette sales on Indian reservations wasn’t happening.

A memo sent to members of the New York Association of Convenience Stores from the group’s president, Jim Calvin — a copy of which I have on my desk — said, “I got a call from Gov. Cuomo’s budget office yesterday. In examining cigarette tax receipts so far this fiscal year (April 1 to March 31) it looks like they will fall considerably short of their projection in new revenues. . . .”

The state had hoped to get the extra dough by enforcing a new law that made it illegal for licensed cigarette wholesalers in the state to sell untaxed name-brand cigarettes like Newport and Marlboro to Indian reservations.

Seriously, how many more times does this have to happen before the regressives get it?  They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result.  Apparently, regressives are the craziest folks on Earth, as they are the energizer bunnies of taxation.   Unfortunately, they are continuing to raise taxes of all sorts, and it’s only going to hurt people, or turn them into criminals.

When regressive propose and implement a policy, and it fails, not only is someone else to blame, the solution to the failure is to do more if it!

Share

Greatest Hits: Top 400 Wage Earners Paid More in Taxes Than the Bottom Half! Leftist Meme Shattered

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Top 400 Wage Earners Paid More in Taxes Than the Bottom Half! Leftist Meme Shattered- So much for the mythical 1%! 

If you listen to the occupods, the mythical 99% are being completely fleeced by the equally mythical 1%.  Class warfare is a stubborn thing, but reality always wins in the end.  Bunkerville has the meme bustage…

Just thought this would be a factoid worthy to report. Reality can be difficult to deal with. Not mentioned is not only do the non-payers not pay, but get money back from the 400. I don’t think 400 come to  “The one percent” do you?

Bottom Line: A small group of 400 of America’s most successful earners in 2009, about the number of residents living in a typical apartment building in Washington, D.C., paid almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom half of America’s 138 million tax filers, which is a population equivalent to the combined number of residents living in America’s 29 least populated states, plus the District of Columbia.

We hear all the time that the “rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes” (123,000 Google search results for that phrase).  Here’s an analysis using recent IRS data that suggests otherwise.

Get over to his place to see more, including a handy graph.

Um, how to we get these people to pay, “their fair share,” when they’re already paying more than 138,000,000 people already?  Or, is this just another liberal scam to vilify success and install communism?  I think you all know the answer to that.

Of course, under a Marxist regime, the 400 would be put to death, as well as a few million of the 138,000,000, but if you want to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs, right?

Share

Greatest Hits- High Cigarette Taxes Fail to Meet Expected Revenue Targets: Anyone Surprised?

Share

High Cigarette Taxes Fail to Meet Expected Revenue Targets: Anyone Surprised?  It seems that taxing something causes people to avoid the tax?  Say it isn’t so!

Apparently, raising taxes on tobacco products is falling out of favor with state governments…

According to Patrick Gleason, director of state affairs for the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, tobacco has not been the revenue boon states that have increased cigarette taxes had hoped.

“The lack of interest in raising tobacco taxes this year can be attributed to the fact that tobacco taxes have indisputably proven to be a dubious and declining source of revenue,” Gleason told TheDC. “From 2003-2007, 16 of 59 tobacco tax hikes fell short of revenue projections.”

Here in Washington D.C., for example, the city’s 2009 $0.50 tax hike resulted in a severe drop in expected revenue. In 2010, the District of Columbia’s chief financial officer Natwar Gandhi reported to the mayor that the projected government intake was over $15 million below what they had initially estimated.

Gleason pointed out that for revenue, cigarette taxes are proving to be a loser.

“New Jersey raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007, yielding $52 million less than Garden State lawmakers anticipated and $22 million less than was generated prior to that tax hike,” Gleason told TheDC. “Over the past decade it has become clear that tobacco taxes are an unreliable source of revenue and one in which no budget should depend on.”

Ok then, many states failed to make their projections, but some actually made less under the new rates?  Who could have seen that coming?

It’s actually sad that this even has to be a story.  It should be filed under, “duh!” Anytime you tax an activity, it either decreases, moves somewhere else, or moves underground.  Let’s take a look at some other examples…

When Maryland passed a higher tax rate for millionaires, they suddenly found themselves with 1/3 less millionaires! 

The source is found here.

Here’s a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:

Maryland couldn’t balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O’Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were “willing and able to pay their fair share.” The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would “grin and bear it.”

One year later, nobody’s grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller’s office concedes is a “substantial decline.” On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.

So, not only did they not meet their projected other people’s money “revenue,”  they actually lost money on the tax!

And that seems to happen anywhere that there are high taxes…

You mean, people move to places where they can KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY?  Astounding!

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, “Rich States, Poor States,” published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Lower taxes mean MORE JOBS???  What a COMPELTELY NEW AND ORIGINAL idea!

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

You mean free markets and low taxes CREATE MORE JOBS?  You mean PEOPLE EARN MORE?  Who would have thought of that?

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies — old and new — have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

If a regressive were reading this, they might say it isn’t true, in spite of all the evidence.  They’d probably go into some class warfare argument against capitalism, and then propose legislation that would make all states suck equally, so people and jobs wouldn’t leave.

Of course, they could always follow the great statist tradition of building walls to keep people from escaping.

While I don’t support smoking-it’s a dirty habit that I kicked a few years back, taxing it usually causes people to avoid the tax. 

Share

Greatest Hits- Taxes: A Historical Perspective

Share

Taxes: A Historical Perspective:  It turns out that taxes kill jobs and cause a loss on revenue?  Who would have thunk it?

With taxes on tanning salons and medical devises in the ObamaCare law, and the states proposing taxes on all sorts of services and products, I think it might be a good time to take a look at just how successful other taxes have been.  In 1990, a luxury tax was passed to go after the “rich people” by taxing things that they buy, luxury yachts, private aircraft, specialty cars, and the like.  They were dead set on making these evil rich people pay more.  The results?  Predictably, the results were completely forgotten by the left.

Note that all of these articles are take from different times during the existence of this tax, which was later repealed, but the damage was already done.

According to a survey of the largest boat dealers in Connecticut, conducted by the Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA), sales of boats costing $100,000 or more have fallen 93 percent, from $7.879 million in 1990 to $ 545,000 for the same period this year. Nationwide, more than 19,000 people have been put out of work at boat making plants.

Source

The 1990 budget deal also slapped a hefty luxury tax on boats… to draw more money from wealthy yacht owners. What actually happened? People bought fewer boats. So who really paid the price? The many nonwealthy boat builders who were put out of work by the tax… The [Washington] Post article reported estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 jobs were lost. These effects were so obvious that even the tax raisers in Congress now plan to repeal the yacht tax.

Source

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

Source

So, just from this small sample, we see that the tax did significant damage to several industries.  And once a business closes, it isn’t likely to return.  The job losses become permanent.  Also, the government made no money on the tax, instead, they lost money on it.

This has continued to happen in other circumstances.  NY’s cigarette taxes created a great new business opportunity for the mafia.  Maryland’s “millionaire tax” caused millionaires to move away.  In each situation, the government in question ended up either not making as much money as projected, or lost money.  When you tax an activity, it either decreases, goes away, or goes underground.  It’s happened all through history, and in the end, it’s the wage earner that takes the hit.  He or she is the one who pays higher costs, or no longer has a job, but the elites can sit in the unreality bubble, secure in their belief that they’ve stuck it to the rich.

Here is some more info on new, (and completely insane) taxes from Dr. Bill Smith at ARRA News Service.

It is definitely odd to be quoting from the liberal NY Times. The below article reveals that the States are in trouble and looking for other sources of more money. Much of the States’ problems are caused by the pending impact of Federal programs like national healthcare. More after the article.
————–
The New York Times: [T]o generate more revenue, states are considering new taxes on virtually everything: garbage pickup, dating services, bowling night, haircuts, even clowns. . . . Opponents of imposing taxes on services like funerals, legal advice, helicopter rides and dry cleaning argue that this push comes as businesses are barely clinging to life and can ill afford to see customers further put off by new taxes. . . .

“This is born out of necessity,” said Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat. His proposed budget, being debated in Harrisburg, would tax services including accounting, advertising and data processing. . . .Most states tax at least some services, particularly items like utilities.

Nevertheless, few states have gone where political leaders in Michigan and Pennsylvania are now suggesting: adding scores of services to their states’ sales tax requirement and lowering the tax rate under a widened tax base. But from coast to coast, desperate governments are looking to tap into new revenue streams.
In Nebraska, a lawmaker has introduced a bill to tax armored car services, farm equipment repairs, shoe shines, taxidermy, reflexology and scooter repairs. In Kentucky,Jim Wayne, a state representative, and some fellow Democrats are proposing taxing high-end services: golf greens fees, limousine and hot-air-balloon rides, and private landscaping.

In June, voters in Maine will decide whether to accept a state overhaul of its tax system that would newly tax services like tailor alterations, blimp rides, and entertainment provided by clowns, comedians and jugglers. . .; [Full Article]

My first reaction to this, aside from knowing that these taxes will only punish wage earners and small entrepreneurs, is that they are going to tax CLOWNS?  How much money are they expecting to get from that?

So, how many of these businesses will shed jobs, cut benefits, hire less people, or simply close due to these new taxes?  It remains to be seen, but rest assured, we’ll be talking about it.

Tens of thousands of jobs lost, paying out more in unemployment than was collected in taxes- this is our future if the regressives tax as they please.  Of course, the results will be blamed on someone else.  And yes, they actually suggested taxing CLOWNS!

Share

Beer Warfare: Our Progressive Tax System In ‘Beer Summit’ Terms

Share

President Obama has been waging his class warfare ever since he took office in 2008. Of course, he ramped it up just before the 2012 Presidential Election, in anticipation of campaigning against his preferred candidate, Mitt Romney. And with the 2016 elections just around the corner, I thought that it would be a good time to revisit and explain our progressive tax structure in beer summit terms.

beer warfare 001Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.’

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

beer warfare 003

beer warfare 002

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important….they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

bucket-beers

Now I don’t know who the original author of this little parable is. It has been floating around the internet for quite some time, in fact I think I have gotten it in various forms in my emails several times.

No matter who first penned it, this piece is quite accurate and it strikes at the heart of progressivism and our very progressive income tax system.

Remember, one of the 10 Planks of Communism as described in Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a “heavy progressive” income tax.

.

.

.

Share

Hey New Jersey, this year you’ll work until May 13th to support the government

Share

Congratulations New Jersey workers. If you’re crazy enough to have a job, you’ll spend the first 4½ months of this year toiling to support the moocher class.

New Jerseyans will have to work an extra four days this year to be free of taxes, according to a report that once again says Garden State residents have the highest tax burden in the nation.

The right-leaning Tax Foundation’s annual “tax freedom day” report card says residents in New Jersey and Connecticut will work the longest in the nation this year to pay off their taxes: until May 13. Last year, “tax freedom day” for both states was May 9.

We’re #1!

We’re #1!

Gee, thanks.

“The sad reality is that every extra day middle-class taxpayers in New Jersey work to pay for government is one less day they are free to provide for their families, save for their child’s education or their retirement, or to invest in their businesses in order to create jobs and opportunity,” Americans for Prosperity State Director Erica Klemens said in a statement.

Government cheese ain’t cheap.

And the people who vote for a living are never satisfied. They vote Democrat, because it’s easier than getting a job.

Tell me again why I live here?

Originally posted at Wyblog!

Share

One Chart Disproves Obama’s Claims That He Is A “Deficit Cutter” – Who Made The Chart? Obama’s Federal Reserve…

Share

FRED Chart 001

Hat/Tip to Doug Ross @ Journal.

Just a few short days ago, President Obama uttered these words in his 2015 State of the Union speech:

At every step, we were told our goals were misguided or too ambitious; that we would crush jobs and explode deficits. Instead, we’ve seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade, our deficits cut by two-thirds, a stock market that has doubled, and health care inflation at its lowest rate in fifty years.

Now I won’t spend time debunking the four lies he told in that short excerpt, instead let’s look at just his claim that he’s a “deficit cutter” in this great article from over at Doug Ross’ place:

ONE CHART IS ALL IT TAKES: The Ludicrous Claims of Obama as a “Deficit-Cutter”

Oh, and did I mention the chart itself comes from the Obama Federal Reserve?

Put simply, any claims linking President Obama to fiscal responsibility are somewhat akin to using Michael Moore as a spokesperson for Jenny Craig.

By the time this walking economic catastrophe has left office, the total federal debt will have doubled. All of the debts rung up in all of American history will have doubled in eight short years.

Every governmental oversight office — from the CBO to the GAO — is warning that the debt is “unsustainable”. Interest payments on the debt will double in just the next five years, from $266.7 billion currently to $578.3 billion in 2020. And the Obama administration’s forecast shows interest payments rising to $785 billion per year by 2025.

And let’s not forget Obama’s failure to even talk about the looming entitlement crisis.

The system is headed for collapse. And Obama has only added fuel to the fire.

.

.

.

Share

Uncle Sam Keeping Gas Above $2/Gallon In Most States

Share

gas pump

 

Hat/Tip to Joseph Rossell at Newsbusters.

You can thank you state and federal government for the fact that most of America is still paying more than two bucks a gallon for gasoline.

Subtracting state and federal taxes and fees on gasoline, the price of a gallon of gas would fall below $2 in 29 states, according to data published by the American Petroleum Institute in October 2014, and by AAA. AAA said the national average for gas dropped to $2.394 per gallon on Dec. 22. while the average state and federal gas taxes and fees averaged a whopping 49.28 cents-per-gallon, or more than 20 percent of the total price.

Of course you won’t hear about those taxes on the evening news broadcasts.

Those gas taxes, which are hidden by being incorporated into the pump price of gasoline, also went unmentioned by the broadcast network evening shows from Sept. 29 to Dec. 21.

And in typical Utopian, knee-jerk, Liberal fashion, we can NEVER have enough taxes…

Falling prices have been good news and economic “stimulus” for drivers and retailers, yet some liberals have already started calling to raise gas taxes even higher — right now, so that consumers won’t feel it. The New American said on Dec. 17, that 67 percent of Americans oppose raising the federal gas tax. According to The Tax Foundation, the federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents-a-gallon.

Howard Gleckman, a Forbes contributor and a resident fellow at The Urban Institute, said on Nov. 11, that this was “a perfect opportunity to raise the gas tax,” because consumers “would barely notice if they had to pay a bit more now at the pump.”

CBS’s “60 Minutes” also promoted calls for higher taxes in a 14-minute segment on Nov. 23, by interviewing five people in favor of increased funding for transportation and no opponents. That night, Ray LaHood, former Secretary of Transportation, told correspondent Steve Kroft that “politicians in Washington” lacked the “political courage” to raise taxes and improve infrastructure.

Another former politician, CNBC’s “On the Money” Dec. 5, Democrat Ed Rendell, former governor of Pennsylvania, said it was time to raise the gas tax in a Dec. 5, CNBC “On the Money” interview.

Rendell claimed, “Our infrastructure’s crumbling. Our roads and our bridges are in dangerous condition and it actually will save people money.” 

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

U.S. Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the Industrialized World

Share

worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rates

The U.S. Has the Highest Corporate Income Tax Rate in the Industrialized World

The next time some Obamabot tries to tell you American corporations aren’t paying their “fair share” in taxes, show them this chart.

xtax-rate-us-760w

See that bottom red line? The one that says “United States?”

Yeah, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and pretty much all Democrats believe a corporate tax rate of 39.1% is not high enough.

Sane people might disagree.

Any day now the White House and Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) will attempt to raise taxes on business, while making the U.S. tax code even more complex. The Obama and Schumer plans to punish businesses for moving their legal domicile overseas will arrive even as a new international ranking shows that the U.S. tax burden on business is close to the worst in the industrialized world. Way to go, Washington.

Can you see why Burger King wants to pay taxes in Canada? They’ll save 13% overnight!

The index takes into account more than 40 tax policy variables. And the inaugural ranking puts the U.S. at 32nd out of 34 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

“With the developed world’s highest corporate tax rate at over 39% including state levies, plus a rare demand that money earned overseas should be taxed as if it were earned domestically, the U.S. is almost in a class by itself. It ranks just behind Spain and Italy, of all economic humiliations. America did beat Portugal and France, which is currently run by an avowed socialist.

Well, to be fair, America is currently being run by an avowed socialist, too.

And when I say “run,” I mean Into The Ground. Barack Obama is running America into the ground. He seems to be enjoying it, too.

Share

Obama Calls for Highest Sustained Taxation…Ever

Share

Last month, President Obama presented a budget to Congress. Immediately Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked what it was because it had been so many years since he’d seen an actual federal budget.

Okay, I’m not really sure if Harry Reid saw or even understood it, but it still calls for the highest sustained taxation in United States history. CNSNews did an excellent job of evaluating it.

In the budget proposal he presented to Congress last month, President Barack Obama called for what would be the highest level of sustained taxation ever imposed on the American people, according to the analysis published last week by the Congressional Budget Office.

Under Obama’s proposal, taxes would rise from 17.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2014 to 19.2 percent in 2024. During the ten years from 2015 to 2024, federal taxation would average 18.7 percent GDP.

America has never been subjected to a ten-year stretch of taxation at that level.

HIGHEST SUSTAINED TAXES-NEW-CHART-1

I guess he just doesn’t think that his policies have driven this economy into the ground fast enough, so he wants to put the rate of decline in high gear. Let’s look back and compare, shall we?

In the twelve fiscal years preceding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1930 through 1941), federal taxation averaged 5.3 percent of GDP.

In the five fiscal years encompassing U.S. involvement in World War II (1942 through 1946), federal taxation averaged 16.1 percent of GDP.

In the fiscal years since World War II (1947 through 2013), federal taxation has averaged 17.1 percent of GDP.

In the period from fiscal 1992 through 2001, federal taxes averaged 18.3 percent of GDP. But in the last four years of that period (1998 through 2001), the federal budget was in balance.

In the twelve fiscal years from 2002 through 2013, federal taxes averaged 16.1 percent of GDP—the same that they averaged during World War II. However, the federal government ran deficits in each of those twelve years.

In all ten years from 2015 through 2024, under Obama’s proposal, federal taxes would be higher than 18.3 percent of GDP. During the period of 1992 through 2011, there were only five straight years (1997-2001) when federal taxes were higher than 18.3 percent of GDP.

Despite this record amount of insane taxation, the CBO projects that the public debt will increase –

Under Obama’s budget proposal, according to the CBO, the budget will never balance. But over the next ten years, the federal government would add $7.183 trillion to its debt held by the public.

DEBT HELD BY PUBLIC-OBAMA BUDGET-CHART

Share

Using the Beer Summit to Explain Progressive Taxes

Share

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

bucket beersThe ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free, but what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share’?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same percent, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,” but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, men and women, liberals and Marxists and everyone else who keeps crying about “tax cuts for the rich,” is how the progressive income tax system in America works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is a lot friendlier.

Share

Asylum Watch Interprets Bill Gates et al. Vision Of The Future

Share

Bill Gates has become an American icon. He is the epitome of the American success story. Born into a well to do family, he attended the same elite private school as his father had before him. He went on to Harvard but drop out because he had an idea for a new type computer operating system he wanted to work at developing. He would develop an operating system that would allow low tech people to use computers. He called his new computer operating system “Windows”  and he built a company around his idea called Microsoft. Bill’s idea caught on quickly and Microsoft Windows would grow to be the dominate computer  operating system in the world. As a result of the success of Microsoft, Bill Gates became the richest man in the world  (estimated net worth is $76 billion).

So, when someone with the genius of Bill Gates talks about his vision of the future, it’s probably a good idea to pay attention to what he has to say… and it’s also a good idea to read between the lines of what he and other elites have to say about the future.

Mr. Gates spoke to the American Enterprise Institute last month and Business Insider reported on what he had to say:

… Gates said that within 20 years, a lot of jobs will go away, replaced by software automation (“bots” in tech slang, though Gates used the term “software substitution”).

This is what he said:

“Software substitution, whether it’s for drivers or waiters or nurses … it’s progressing. …  Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set. …  20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don’t think people have that in their mental model.”

{…}

Gates believes that the tax codes are going to need to change to encourage companies to hire employees, including, perhaps, eliminating income and payroll taxes altogether. He’s also not a fan of raising the minimum wage, fearing that it will discourage employers from hiring workers in the very categories of jobs that are most threatened by automation.

He explained:

“When people say we should raise the minimum wage. I worry about what that does to job creation … potentially damping demand in the part of the labor spectrum that I’m most worried about.”

Isn’t that something? The richest man in the world is “most worried” about minimum wage workers. And, Gates is suggesting that income taxes( including corporate taxes) and payroll taxes should be eliminated. How do Gates and friends see the cost of the federal government being paid? This Daily Caller articles tells us that they want to replace income and payroll taxes with a consumption tax.

“I think it’s [a] tough” task to protect the middle class from the impact of automation, billionaire investor and immigration-advocate Steve Case said in December.

“I do think tax structures will have to move away from taxing [companies’] payroll because society has a desire to have employment,” Gates said.

“That’s going to force us to rethink how these tax structures work in order to maximize employment,” he said. One alternative, he said, would be to create consumption taxes — such as a federal sales tax — to hit higher-income people, while also reducing taxes paid by employers for each employee.

“The idea that consumption should be progressively taxed, I think that makes a lot of sense,” he said.

A progressive consumption (sales) tax? How would that work? I guess everyone would have to have a government I.D. with a computer chip containing the information from their W-2 forms. In other words, the robot waiting on a customer would ask for their government I.D. card and scan it and the costumers income level would determine their percentage consumption tax.

Earlier in the Daily Caller article there was this little tidbit about just how much impact new technology may have on the job market:

A 2013 “study by Oxford University researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne … [predicted] that nearly half of American jobs are at ‘high risk’ of being taken over by robots in the next decade or two,” National Journal reported in March.

In 20 years half of American’s jobs may be lost to robots and “software solutions”. That is scary! Yet, as this same article and many others point out, Gates and friends are big supporters of the Senate’s immigration reform bill. Does that make sense if so many people are going to lose their jobs? How many illiterate immigrants is Microsoft going to hire? The Daily Caller article may have the answer:

The immigration increases are backed by progressives who believe new immigrants will vote for Democrats. They’re also backed by wealthy voters who stand to gain from cheaper workers or services, such as landscaping and childcare. The increases are also backed by many business leaders, including Gates and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who try to hire cheap foreign professionals for jobs sought by American professionals.

Ah! That clears things up. Gates and friends want to be able to hire highly qualified immigrants who will accept a much lower salary than Americans with the same qualifications. The rational they use is that with so much unemployment due to technology, it’s necessary keep the employer’s cost for labor down in the formerly upper middle class so that even more people don’t become unemployed.

Summary

If Bill Gates and friends are right about “software solutions” and robotics replacing up to 50% of the workforce within two decades and if they succeed in getting the tax reforms and immigration reforms they want, America will no longer be a “first world” nation. (Logically all other “developed” nations would go the same way.) The number of people on food stamps would go from 50 million today to maybe 150 million in those two decades. The middle class will shrink dramatically and the average income of the remaining middle class will be much less than it is today. The rich oligarchs though their very high consumption tax will be paying to support all those who can not find employment.

Her is a question for you to ponder. How long will the rich oligarchs put up with supporting half or more the population?

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Asylum Watch

Share

IRS Intercepts Tax Returns!

Share

Think you’re getting a tax return?  Well, maybe not, if the IRS has their way.  IOwnTheWorld has more…

Marc Fisher reporting in the Washington Post:

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one [Mary] Grice [of Takoma Park, Md.] got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

No one seems eager to take credit for [the provision]…

Remember that Farm Bill that no one read?  Yeah, that’s what you get when you elect fools to office.

Share

George W. Bush’s Stimulus vs. Barack H. Obama’s – A Look Back

Share

When Obama came into office, he faced the bursting of the housing bubble and a big recession. His answer was to respond with a stimulus package, mostly full of spending, but with some minor tax cuts thrown in for lip service. But his predecessor also came into office faced with a big recession and he also responded with his own stimulus package. Let’s take a look at the way both men handled the problems facing each.

As I said above, let us remember why the Bush tax cuts even took place. When Bush & Cheney took office, they faced a recession that began at the end gwbushof Clinton’s tenure in the Oval Office. The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act was Bush’s version of Obama’s stimulus plan. But instead of subsidizing a vast expansion of government and creating a lot of temporary government jobs, it cut tax rates increased the standard deduction for married folks, increased the child tax credit and increased contribution caps for a bunch of different savings programs.

And what did that do?

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the recession ended in November ’01. Of course 9/11 hit and the economy slowed way down again and it was coming back at a very anemic rate. So enter the Jobs Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. It bolstered the ’01 tax cuts by focusing on dividends and capital gains.

What was the result this time?

Those “tax cuts for the rich” enabled the rich to pay MORE taxes in 2005 than they did any time in the previous two decades. You read that right, more than in the prior 20 years. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that those Bush tax cuts showed the richest of the rich – that famed “1%,” went from paying 25% of all income taxes in 1990 to 39% in 2005. The wealthiest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in ’90, to paying a staggering 60% of them in 2005.

Isn’t the left always repeating that they wish the rich would just pay what they’re supposed to? Seems to me, they’d be a big fan of the Bush tax cuts, then. In fact, if you go back farther to 1980 and look at the numbers, with the top marginal tax rate at 70%, the wealthiest 1% paid 19% of all income taxes. Under Bush with the top marginal at 35%, they pay more than double that 19%.

The economy went from being near a standstill at 0.3% growth in 2001 to 2.5% just the next year, and by ’04 GDP was growing at its highest rate in 20 years. Correspondign to this, the unemployment fell to the lowest levels since WWII.

Did you catch that? The Bush tax cuts created the lowest unemployment levels – ever.

But you’ll never hear that in the main stream media, they’re too busy bashing Bush and covering for their ideological leader.

Speaking of President Obama, what exactly are the results of his economic approach?

Well, in November of 2obama finger011  the Congressional Budget Office downgraded its estimate of the benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or the ’09 stimulus spending package. The CBO says that it MIGHT have sustained 700,000 to 3.5 million jobs during it’s peak in 2010, but over the long haul, it is going to be a net drag on the economy.

Then in 2012, the CBO revised that estimate to between a paltry 200,000 and 1.2 million jobs. If we take the very optimistic number of 1.2 million jobs created by the stimulus, then each job cost the taxpayers $692,500.

Fast forward to 2014, and gues what? Looks like the CBO was correct. But what else did they say?

They said that it DID positively affect the economy in the short run, but adding all that extra debt is keeping out private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run…”

The Congressinal Budget Office continued to re-evaluate the stimulus every three months, so its estimates for the cost of Obama’s stimulus have varied from 787$ billion to a high of $862 billion. And the CBO has changed its model for the stimulus’ spending’s direct impact on the economy, showing that ARRA did less than first estimated.

Basically, the CBO states that for every dollar of federal spending, it “crowds out” about a third of a dollar of private spending. And this tells us what we all already knew, the best thing that government can do to put Americans back to work and get the economy pumping is to just plain get out of the way.

Share

Death and Taxes….. and Death Taxes and Crony Capitalists

Share

‘In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. _ Benjamin Franklin, 1817

Ben certainly knew what he was talking about, didn’t he? Life and death are two sides of the same coin. We also know there is no such thing as a free lunch; so it is no surprise to anyone that government is not free. We have to pay for the government we want and, sadly, we also have to pay for government we don’t want. So, we pay taxes for all of our different governments. The problem, of course, is most people feel they pay too much in taxes and we pay too much in taxes because we have too much government; at least, we conservative/libertarians feel that way.

Life invariably ends in death. With our federal government, however, we can not escape taxes even in death. In my opinion, there is a no more diabolical tax than the inheritance tax; aka, Death Tax. (Property tax is a close second.) I can’t think of any tax that is as immoral as the is the death tax.

Think about it. It matters not if a person expects to leave an estate worth $10, 000 or $100,000 or $100 million. In each case their estates or their assets or their wealth _ whatever you want to call it _ was acquired over their lifetime from their AFTER TAX INCOME. Their estate is the sum of what they have been able to accumulate after paying taxes. But, the federal government currently has the right the benefits from your lifetime income again. And, it is a big tax! How can that be moral? It’ not moral.

So, who supports the government penalizing people for having died? It’s not a trick question, is it? It’s the usual fiends; liberal Democrats and their crony capitalists pals, who keep their campaign coffers full. The Democrats have never seen a tax they didn’t like and the Crony Capitalist are always looking for a way to profit at someone elses expense.

Timothy P. Carney has an excellent article at Reason.com titled Crony Capitalism vs Market Morality. His article covers several subjects and one of them is the Death Tax:

It’s 2005. While Republicans are fighting to permanently repeal the estate tax (or “death tax,” in their phrasing), a nonprofit called the Coalition for America’s Priorities spearheads the counterattack, deriding the proposed repeal as the Leave No Heiress Behind Act. One television spot, run by a coalition partner called United for a Fair Economy, features a lithe, flaxen-haired, Paris Hilton-esque narrator named “London” thanking the GOP for trying to maximize her inheritance.

Typical class warfare rhetoric (nothing more than envy) of divide and conquer by implying that inheritance is something only the rich enjoy. How sons and daughters have lost their family’s farm or the family’s business or Granpa’s coin collection due to their inability to pay the Death Tax? They don’t mention those things, do they? And, who was funding the liberal think tank, Coalition for America’s Priorities? The insurance companies, of course. The same crony group who partnered with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to bestow us with ObamaCare. Carney writes:

…Yet the entire thing is funded by the life insurance industry.

Why? Because the death tax creates business for life insurers. A major selling point of life insurance is that its benefits, unlike inherited money, can be totally tax-free. Take the estate tax away, and that selling point disappears. Hence the campaign.

{…}

The life insurers’ partnership with the left to save the estate tax is a classic case of Baptists and bootleggers, to borrow a famous phrase from the economist Bruce Yandle. In Yandle’s account, the Baptist preacher provides the anti-alcohol campaigner with a moral cover story for his efforts, while the bootlegger, who will profit from Prohibition, bankrolls the effort.

George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut included a gradual repeal of the estate tax. But because the Bush bill was scheduled to sunset in 10 years, the tax was set to rise from the dead on January 1, 2011. After voters re-elected Bush and increased the Republicans’ Senate majority in 2004, permanent repeal of the estate tax became a GOP priority.

Many liberals wanted to keep the tax, arguing that it helped slow the growth of economic inequality. But the real muscle opposing permanent repeal came not from liberals but from insurers. Steve Ricchetti and his brother Jeff founded Ricchetti Inc., a K Street firm, in 2001. (Jeff still runs the lobbying firm; Steve is now Joe Biden’s chief of staff.) In 2004 the Association of Advanced Life Underwriting hired the Ricchettis to lobby on “issues affecting estate tax repeal,” according to a filing with the Senate Office of Public Records. Ricchetti Inc. was also retained by a larger industry group, the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

I have no doubt that if we were to investigate, we would find a 99% correlation between those in Congress who voted to pass the Death Tax with those to whom the insurance companies made campaign contributions.

I don’t have a problem with lobbying per se. All citizens have the right to lobby their government in their own interest. That right is protected by the First Amendment. And, companies do have an obligation to their shareholders to increase profits. The problem comes crony capitalist conspire with the government to benefit at the expense of others. That is not only immoral; that is criminal. And, what could be more immoral and criminal than the Death Tax?

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post: Asylum Watch

Share

New Fee for Heating Oil in the Farm Bill? You Bet!

Share

If you use oil to heat your home, prepare to bend over yet again.  It appears that the Farm Bill that is floating around has a new fee for home heating oil buried inside it.  Steve, From America’s Watchtower, has more…

 Today I put 100 gallons of oil into my tank and it cost me $369.90, but when the Farm Bill becomes law it will cost me even more to put oil in my tank because hidden in this legislation is a new fee on home heating oil.

Congress‘ mammoth farm bill restores the imposition of an extra fee on home heating oil, hitting consumers in cold-weather states just as utility costs are spiking.

The fee — two-tenths of a cent on every gallon sold — was tacked on to the end of the 959-page bill, which is winding its way through Capitol Hill. The fee would last for nearly 20 years and would siphon the money to develop equipment that is cheaper, more efficient and safer, and to encourage consumers to update their equipment.

   This fee is supposed to be used to fund, you guessed it, alternative energy research. We are supposed to accept paying more now for the promise of possibly paying less in the future if any of these green energy initiatives ever pan out. Of course we saw with Barack Obama’s green energy initiative in the stimulus bill that this money was simply funneled to corporations with ties to the Obama regime and many of these companies have since gone bankrupt.

So, bend over, and get ready to get ripped off some more.  After all, Obama’s supporters have to get  reward for their efforts, and someone has to pay for it.

Share

Simple Questions About Obamacare

Share

To the American Left, please answer a few questions about Obamacare. How can the ACA be so good when it is going to drive tens of millions of Americans out of their existing coverage when the employer mandate kicks in?

 
What about the mandate forcing folks to act against their faith? Their 1st Amendment rights are violated under the ACA by making contraceptives, sterilization and aborto-facient drugs are mandatory for employers to provide.

 
What about the over 20 new taxes that are hitting the American people for a half a trillion dollars? These are levied against medical innovators, health insurance companies and there’s even a tax on the sale of your home.

 
What about the IPAB(Independent Payment Advisory Board) that is built into the ACA? Sarah Palin was reviled by the left for stating that there are death panels in Obamacare. Turns out, she was correct. Howard Dean, an MD, former head of the Democratic National Committee and former Presidential candidate had a lot to say about the IPAB. “The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal. “Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.”

 
What about Obamacare taking a whopping $716 billion out of the Medicare budget? Please don’t tell me that it’s only ending waste, fraud and abuse because as a disabled American, and a heart transplant candidate, I can personally attest to the fact that I have been denied services previously authorized by Medicare. Literally, the summer after the law passed, I felt the first denial of service by Medicare.

 
What about that $2500 in savings that American families were going to enjoy under Obamacare? Turns out, it was his advisors’ “best guess” on possible savings by the ACA. I wrote an article that was picked up by Free Republic and The Hill. I Promise!! Barack Obama’s Great Deception on Obamacare Premiums. In it, I report how three Harvard professors that were unpaid advisers to the Obama campaign wrote a memo that cites their “best guess” of annual savings of $200 billion. They then divided that by the U.S. population, multiplied out to represent a family of four, then they rounded down to get to the $2500 figure.

 
What about the ACA fundamentally changing the relationhsip between you and your Doctor? Built into Obamacare are government control over doctor decisions. Value-based payments, quality reporting requirements, and government comparative-effectiveness boards will dictate how doctors practice medicine. Nearly half of all physicians are seriously considering leaving practice, leading to a severe doctor shortage.

 
What about this promise by Obama? “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period,” Obama told a joint-session of Congress in September 2009. However, the Congressional Budget Office. Realistic projections suggested by reports from not only the CBO, but the CMS trustees (the entity that controls Medicare and Medicaid) and their chief Medicare actuary is very, very dire. They state that the “primary deficit” will increase exponentially each year. The Democratically controlled Senate Budget Committee and the GAO have confirmed that this will add $6.2 trillion to our ever expanding federal deficit.

 
And finally, what do you say to the 159 new boards, agencies and programs the ACA creates? How much more government do you want?

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304361/top-ten-worst-things-obamacare-grace-marie-turner

Share

Obama Is Eyeing Your Savings!

Share

Remember when President Obama said “there comes a point when a person has earned enough”? Well, it should be a surprise that he also feels that people have saved more than they need for retirement. Mr. Obama has given new meaning to the word “arrogance”.

With this scandal a day administration, it is no wonder some of their plans to get their hands on more of your money slip under the radar.

On Aril 12, 2013, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

How many times have you read financial-advice stories lecturing you to max-out on your IRA, save as much as you can in your 401(k), and even pay taxes now to change your regular IRA into a Roth IRA that will be tax-free until you die?

Well, be careful how much you save.

Assistant OpinionJournal.com editor Allysia Finley on President Obama’s attack on tax deferred retirement accounts.

A lot of job-switchers are ignoring what may be one of the best options to get the most out of their retirement: Moving their savings into their new employer’s 401(k). MarketWatch’s Jim Jelter explains the benefits.

That’s the message in President Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014, which for the first time proposes to cap the amount Americans can save in these tax-sheltered investment vehicles. The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.” So Mr. Obama proposes to “limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013.”

On April 14, 2013, the Independent Sentinel wrote:

THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU NEXT, make no mistake about that!. They already proposed it back in 2008. The government is on the hunt for more money to support its spending problem. President Obama wants more “revenue” – “taxes” – so he can make more “investments” as he spreads the wealth around.

You need to be afraid, very afraid!

Americans have $17.5 trillion in savings with 25% of it in IRA’s. It is a future source of revenue for the government if they can get their hands on it.

President Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan estimated that retirement tax deductions taken by employers and individuals over the next five years add up to $429 billion in “lost” tax revenue. The government believes your savings is their lost revenue.

See how that works? Because you take a legal tax deduction, the government is getting screwed. Never mind that the original idea was to give citizens an incentive to save. Further along in the Independent Sentinel article we find this:

Share