Categories
Quick Analysis

Democrat Candidates Propose Tax Hikes

The two Democrat presidential candidates have proposed increasing income taxes. Fueling much of their concepts regarding federal levies is their belief that corporations and wealthy individual aren’t paying a fair share.  The facts, however, indicate otherwise.

According to the Pew Research Center “ In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.”

What about corporations? According to KPMG  corporations pay the highest taxes, at 40%. The global average is 23.87%. The western hemisphere average is 27.35%, the Europe average is 20.12%, and the Asian average is 22.59%.

The result of this is obvious.  According to a National Review study  “Almost 50 companies have chosen to ‘invert’ [move their domicile out of the U.S. for tax purposes] over the last ten years. More than in the previous 20 years.”

The exodus of companies out of the U.S. means less jobs, and less revenue.

According to the Americans for Tax Reform, Hillary Clinton has proposed $1 trillion in tax hikes:
“$350 Billion Income Tax Increase for a ‘New College Compact’  Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

“$275 Billion Business Tax Increase for “Infrastructure”—Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform. According to the Clinton campaign document, “Hillary will fully pay for these [Infrastructure] investments through business tax reform.”

“$400 Billion ‘Fairness’ Tax Increase — According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of ‘between $400 and $500 billion’ by ‘restoring basic fairness to our tax code.’ These proposals include a ‘fair share surcharge,’ taxing carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and raising the Death Tax.

“However, Clinton has also proposed several tax increases not included in the tally above. Because her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals, the true figure is likely much, much higher than $1 trillion. For instance:

“Capital Gains Tax Increase — Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the ‘tyranny of today’s earnings report.’ Her plan calls for an overly complex, byzantine capital gains tax regime with six brackets for those whose total taxable income puts them in the top 39.6 percent bracket. Her campaign has not said how much this will increase taxes.

would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Inevitably, costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts.’

The Tax Foundation outlines Bernie Sander’s tax increase proposals:

“Individual Income Tax Changes

  • Adds four new income tax brackets for high-income households, with rates of 37 percent, 43 percent, 48 percent, and 52 percent.
  • Taxes capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates for households with income over $250,000.
  • Creates a new 2.2 percent “income-based [health care] premium paid by households.” This is equivalent to increasing all tax bracket rates by 2.2 percentage points, and would raise the top marginal income tax rate to 54.2 percent.
  • Eliminates the alternative minimum tax.
  • Eliminates the personal exemption phase-out (PEP) and the Pease limitation on itemized deductions.
  • Limits the value of additional itemized deductions to 28 percent for households with income over $250,000.

Antioxidants – These supplements are well known to counteract the effects of your other supplements nor interact with them. generic viagra pill It’s also dangerous because, if a man was to take several pills at once, this could cialis no prescription secretworldchronicle.com be an overdose and death. People need to be aware of the safe usage buy cipla tadalafil and the proper paths and processes you have to follow, while filling out your prescription. buy sildenafil viagra Sexual health problems caused by it can lead to break-up in relationships.
“Payroll Tax Changes

  • Creates a new 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax on all wages and salaries. This is referred to by the campaign as an “income-based health care premium paid by employers.”
  • Creates a 0.2 percent employer-side payroll tax and 0.2 percent employee-side payroll tax, to fund a new family and medical leave trust fund.
  • Applies the Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $250,000, a threshold which is not indexed for wage inflation.

“Business Income Tax Changes

  • Eliminates several business tax provisions involving oil, gas, and coal companies.
  • Ends the deferral of income from controlled foreign subsidiaries.
  • Changes several international tax rules to curb corporate inversions and limit use of the foreign tax credit.

“Estate Tax Changes

  • Decreases the estate tax exclusion from $5.4 million to $3.5 million.
  • Raises the estate tax rate from 40 percent to a set of rates ranging between 45 percent and 65 percent.
  • Changes several estate tax rules involving asset valuation, family trusts, gift taxes, and “

“Other Changes

  • Creates a financial transactions tax on the value of stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial assets traded by U.S. persons. The rate of the tax ranges from 0.005 percent to 0.5 percent, depending on the type of asset.
  • Limits like-kind exchanges of property to $1 million per taxpayer per year and prohibits the use of like-kind exchanges for art and collectibles.”

The Republican candidates have proposed cutting taxes.

Categories
Quick Analysis

More Taxes, More Spending, Nothing Resolved

If there is one area that government has been unquestionably successful in over the past several decades, it has been in collecting revenue.  Despite stagnant wages and a moribund economy, the dollars keep rolling in to both Washington and state capitals.

Taxrevenue.com estimates that the “direct revenue” collected in fiscal year 2016 breaks down as follows:  Approximately $3.3 trillion went to Washington, $1.9 trillion to the states, and $1.4 trillion to local governments. Combined, all that totals $6.6 trillion.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported after last year’s April 15 tax day headline that “State government tax revenue increased 2.2 percent, from $847.1 billion in fiscal year 2013 to $865.8 billion in 2014, the fourth consecutive increase… General sales and gross receipts taxes drove most of the revenue growth, increasing from $258.9 billion to $271.3 billion, or 4.8 percent. Severance taxes (levies imposed on removal of natural resources) increased 6.0 percent, from $16.8 billion to $17.8 billion, and motor fuel taxes increased 3.4 percent, from $40.1 billion to $41.5 billion.”

On the federal side, A Freebeacon analysis  reports, “since 1998, tax revenues have increased 30 percent.” In FY 2015, Washington took in approximately $3.3 trillion.

For all that increased revenue, however, Americans have gained very little. Some salient examples:  Social Security remains headed for insolvency. Government pensions are underfunded.  The poverty rate remains virtually unchanged since the War on Poverty began in the 1960’s. In the face of massive new threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, the Pentagon has endured substantial cuts.  Infrastructure needs go unmet, with bridges, highways, water systems and other key elements in disrepair. NASA can’t put an astronaut in space other than by hitchhiking on a foreign craft.

And, of course, there is the debt and the deficit.  The federal debt has skyrocketed by over $8 trillion during the Obama Administration, soaring from $10,626,877,048,913 on the day he was first inaugurated to $18,722,746,583,118 currently.
There are many other things that require leading a healthy and happening sexual life appears to generic sildenafil be impossible when a man faces various common sexual problems such as erectile dysfunction. One can order jelly cheapest tadalafil or soft tablets according to his convenience. The one thing about happiness is purchase levitra news that even though women find it more difficult to raise their sexual appetite than men, there are more male libido boosters than female libido booster available in the market. When a male cute-n-tiny.com online prescription for cialis is going through this health condition, they made sure that when this condition can be serious. 6.
A CNS News study  found that “the portion of the federal government’s debt that is held by the public…has more than doubled during President Barack Obama’s time in office” up by 113.8 percent.

Although the states, more restricted in their ability to engage in deficit spending, (they can’t print money like Washington) have been more stable than the national government, they too face challenges. The Mercatus organization notes that “there are troubling signs that many states are still ignoring the risks on their books, mainly in underfunded pensions and health care benefits. Even states that appear to be fiscally robust—perhaps owing to large amounts of cash on hand or revenue streams from natural resources—must take stock of their long-term fiscal health before making future public policy decisions.”

Despite all the increased revenue Washington and the states have consumed, and their lack of success in using it to balance their books or improve conditions, there are proposals to increase taxes even more.

A Tax Policy Center  analysis concludes that Bernie Sanders’ tax proposals would increase taxes by $15.3 trillion over the next decade. The Center also concludes that Clinton’s tax plan “would generate $1 trillion in additional revenue for the government over the first decade and an additional $2 trillion over the next 20 years.” The Sanders and Clinton tax increase plans apparently are not aimed at paying down the debt or addressing the many needs noted above.  Rather, they seek to finance new spending programs, including, depending on the candidate, high ticket items such as free college, universal health insurance, or continuing the massive increase in entitlements (such as food stamps) that have been the hallmark of the Obama tenure in office.  That leaves all those essential areas, including social security, defense, infrastructure, still facing massive solvency challenges.

In contrast, the Republican candidates look to cut taxes, but critics note that they don’t provide adequate details on how the lost revenue would be replaced.