Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Monday, January 14, 2013

I'm cutting back and you should too...

h/t CC




I'm going to bite the bullet, too!!!!

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100
million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.

I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same
thing with my personal budget. I spend about $2,000 a month on
groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc., but it's time
to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back.

I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio (1/35,000) of my
total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending
$2,000 a month, I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents. Yes,
I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is
all about.

I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries –
six cents worth.

Did this President actually think no one would do the math? Please send
this to everyone on your list so people understand how idiotic a $100
million cut is in a $3.5 trillion budget – ludicrous!!!!!!!

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation...
One is by sword...
The other is by debt."
John Adams 1826

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Democrats lay out second-term wish list - quotations also suggest some rising confidence


Democrats lay out second-term wish list for President Obama

By Mike Lillis 09/29/12 06:00 AM ET
The presidential contest is far from over, but House Democrats are already readying their legislative wish-lists in hopes that President Obama is reelected.
The lawmakers are floating a broad array of issues they'd like Obama to tackle immediately in a second term, placing a focus on jobs and the economy, but also thorny discretionary issues like immigration, climate change, housing – even a return to healthcare reform.
An Obama victory in November would lend the president a new fistful of political capital as he confronts Republican leaders over how to avoid the fiscal cliff and steer the polarized country through the next four years. More than a month before November's elections, his allies in the House are already offering tips for how to spend it.
“He's got to continue to concentrate on jobs,” Rep. Bill Pascrell said last week as the House was leaving town for a long, pre-election recess.
“I'm hoping he'll do immigration reform,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas).
“We should get back to an energy policy – one that acknowledges that climate change is real,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
“The critical issues will be revenue generation … and … a concerted push on immigration reform,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.).
“I think he'd want his administration to start on healthcare,” said Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.).
The remarks highlight the sheer variety of issues the Democrats are hoping to address after two years in the House minority – and foreshadow the degree of pressure a reelected Obama would be under to satisfy his allies after a bruising campaign season.
The quotations also suggest some rising confidence among Democrats.
The presidential contest remains a close one, but recent polls show Obama with a growing lead in the key battleground states of Ohio and Florida are indication that GOP contender Mitt Romney has a hard road ahead to unseat the incumbent. National polls this week also showed Obama with a growing lead, while Republican criticism of Romney has intensified.
Although the Republicans are expected to keep control of the House, an Obama win amid a lingering jobs crisis would – at least in the eyes of Democrats – validate some of the policies the president has adopted on the campaign trail and pressure Republicans to reach deals on them. Indeed, some leading Republicans have said an Obama victory would be “a referendum” for raising taxes on the country's highest earners, one of Obama's top priorities.
The power of post-election momentum was evident four years ago when Obama was swept into the White House in a wave of Democratic victories that allowed the party to secure the early passage of their controversial economic stimulus package and paved the way for the enactment of sweeping healthcare reforms the following year.
Although voter enthusiasm toward Obama waned, reelection would give the president new – if fleeting – leverage in his negotiations with GOP leaders over a range of issues.
His House supporters are hoping he uses that leverage to fight for a long list of Democratic priorities that were lost to the partisan battles of the last Congress.
Topping the list are lingering concerns about an economy where unemployment remains stuck above 8 percent.
“Debt and jobs,” Welch said. “That's the fundamental issue: How are we going to deal with the debt in a way that promotes growth?”
Obama last year floated legislation designed to create jobs by boosting infrastructure spending, promoting manufacturing and hiking taxes on corporations that outsource jobs – central elements of the Democrats' “Make it in America” agenda. But Republicans in both chambers have prevented that package from going anywhere.
Other lawmakers think social issues will be on the president’s radar.
A growing number of Democrats, for instance, see immigration as a top issue in a second Obama term, particularly if Latinos vote overwhelmingly for the president – as current polls predict – and Republicans are pressured to compromise or risk losing those voters in every national election for the foreseeable future.
“If we don't do it next year, 2014 is going to be here, and then 2016 is going to be here,” said Cuellar. “So I think we'll have a window like we had a window in 2009 after his election … and I hope we get to do it.”
Grijalva agreed that a big win for Obama with Latinos would be enough to convince Republicans to support immigration reform in early 2013 just to “put that issue behind us.”
“It's been a venomous issue politically now for almost three election cycles,” he said.
Honda, meanwhile, wants Obama to return to healthcare reform – the issue that consumed more than a year between 2009 and 2010 – to expand on the state-based insurance exchanges enacted under the Affordable Care Act.
“We've got more to do,” he said. “There should be a federal exchange.”
There's also an emerging push for the Democrats to revisit climate change legislation next year, an issue House Democrats addressed in 2009, only to watch Senate leaders ignore their proposal. The vote was a liability for a number of conservative-leaning House Democrats in the 2010 elections that swept the Republicans into the majority, but Welch argued the issue isn't as partisan as it seems.
“By focusing on energy efficiency, where there's a lot of common ground, [we could] create jobs and it would achieve one-third of the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050,” he said. “That's a big deal.”
Obama, for his part, is optimistic that Republicans would be more willing to compromise in a second term than they were in his first.
“My hope is that when the American people speak in this election – if I'm fortunate enough to be elected but we still have a Republican-controlled House – that some of the fever breaks and the particular goal of beating me no longer holds,” Obama told Ohio's Plain Dealer Thursday.
Still, the window to act on significant legislative changes will likely be short, as the fiscal cliff debate could extend well into 2013, leaving little room to maneuver before the campaign season launches for the 2014 midterms.
Asked how Obama should spend his political capital if he wins reelection, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) offered some advice.
"Carefully," he warned. "Carefully.
"Whatever we go after first has to be a bipartisan issue, whether it's cyber-security, whether it's payroll tax, whether it's the doc fix in Medicare, whether it's the jobs bill – whatever it is – we've got to do it together," Cleaver added. "Because even if we have the votes and try to run over them, the hostility will be so great here on the Hill that the midterm will very likely create problems."

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Top 3 Small Business Struggles



Small businesses are getting a lot of focus from politicians, because they are a key engine of job creation—which has stalled in the U.S. economy. A Republican National Convention theme of "We Built It" continued the political debate over the economy yesterday.

survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in July revealed that small businesses' top three concerns were taxes, regulations, and poor sales. A quick look at these top three small business struggles shows they have every reason to be demoralized.

1. Taxes

Small businesses are under enormous threats from looming tax hikes. President Obama is advocating a tax hike on the country's job creators—the at least 1.2 million small businesses that employ workers and make more than $200,000.  Known as flow-through businesses, these entrepreneurs pay their taxes through the individual income tax. A study by Ernst & Young estimates that this tax hike would kill about 710,000 jobs and cause real wages to drop.

This tax hike, however, is just a portion of the Taxmageddon crisis scheduled to hit the country on January 1. The Congressional Budget Office has left little doubt that unless Congress and the President prevent Taxmageddon, the country is headed toward a fresh recession next year.

And Taxmageddon includes only some of Obamacare's 18 new tax hikes, several of which don't kick in until 2014 or later. The tax landscape is truly bleak.

2. Regulations

Heritage's James Gattuso and Diane Katz have documented the sea of new regulations that continue to drown America's businesses. In their detailed report, "Red Tape Rising," they note: "During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. Hundreds more regulations are winding through the rulemaking pipeline as a consequence of the Dodd–Frank financial-regulation law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency's global warming crusade, threatening to further weaken an anemic economy and job creation."

The cost of these regulations strangles economic growth and job creation.



3. Poor Sales

In an economy with 8.3 percent unemployment, consumers have to cut back. Struggling sales are no mystery. Higher fuel prices are also hurting small businesses, which must make the no-win decision of passing these costs on to consumers or absorbing the costs themselves.

Heritage's Nick Loris explains the impact of fuel costs on the economy : "In a recent poll by the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, 40 percent of small businesses responding said they have had to increase their prices. But that approach has a distinct downside. When consumer demand is already down, passing higher costs on to consumers suppresses demand even further, causing lower output, lower income and higher unemployment."

To all of this, President Obama has said, "We tried our plan—and it worked."

It's not working for small business owners or for nearly 13 million jobless Americans.

Congress and the President need to stop Taxmageddon, open access to our energy resources, and reduce regulations that cost more than the benefits they deliver. America needs jobs, and small businesses need relief.

morningbell@heritage.org

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Four Pinocchios for Harry Reid’s claim about Mitt Romney’s taxes


Four Pinocchios for Harry Reid’s claim about Mitt Romney’s taxes

 at 06:02 AM ET, 08/07/2012

(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)















“The word's out that he [Romney] hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years.”
— Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Aug. 2, 2012
Reid has generated a lot of controversy with his claim that presumptive GOP nominee did not pay any taxes for 10 years. He originally told the Huffington Post that a person who had invested with Bain Capital had called his office and told him this. Then, he told reporters in Nevada that “I have had a number of people tell me that.”
Reid has refused to identify his source (or sources). Romney and his campaign aides have emphatically denied the charge but Reid has stood firm. “I don't think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes.”
This whole exchange poses a fact-checking conundrum. Generally, we maintain that the person or the campaign making the charge must back it up. Reid has refused to provide any evidence, except for the (unproven) fact that someone called him up and told him something that may be true — or simply a rumor.
But we can still examine how credible this rumor might be.
The Facts
 Romney has refused to release more than two years of tax returns, citing a precedent that is not very credible; he earned three Pinocchios for that claim. Most presidential candidates in recent years have released more than two years of returns, so Romney may be paying a political price for failing to release more.
But Romney’s 2010 return and his estimated 2011 return do show that he paid substantial taxes in those years. In 2010, he earned nearly $22 million, including $3 million in taxable interest, nearly $5 million in dividends and more than $12 million in capital gains. He reduced his taxes by giving $3 million in charitable contributions (much of it in appreciated stock, which shielded him from paying additional capital gains.)
In other words, this tax return shows a portfolio that is not structured to yield zero taxes. We spoke to a number of tax experts, all of whom said that, given Romney’s current portfolio, it was highly improbable for Romney to have had 10 years with tax-free returns — though there could have been one or two years with little or no taxes.
(We will lay aside the interesting question of Romney’s individual retirement account, valued at as much as $100 million, which may have benefited from Bain Capital’s practice of allowing employees to co-invest retirement funds in takeover deals.)
Charitable contributions, first of all, could only get Romney so far. Taxpayers cannot eliminate tax liability only through charitable contributions.
Still, Romney at one point could have invested all of his money in tax-exempt bonds, though that is not his investment strategy now. (IRS figures show that 61 percent of high-income returns with no tax liability stemmed from tax-exempt interest.)
Romney also could have timed the sale of stocks or made other investment decisions that would have yielded losses that offset capital gains. Len Burman, a professor at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, said IRS data show that 5.7 percent of the high-income returns had as a primary reason losses from partnerships and closely-held business. “We know that Governor Romney had a partnership, and it had losses in 2010,” he said. “It’s possible that those partnership losses were large enough to offset taxable income from compensation, rents, interest, dividends, and royalties.”
Romney also could have invested in tax shelters. Edward Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation, noted that Romney chaired the audit committee of Marriott International when it engaged in a highly aggressive tax shelterthat was successfully challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.
But none of this appears to add up to 10 years of tax returns with no taxes paid. “It is theoretically possible, but it seems quite improbable in practice given the portfolio in 2010,” Kleinbard said.  “It is improbable that a man of his wealth would have paid no taxes for 10 years.”
 Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, said that Romney “probably reported income every year” but that he might have paid as low as a 2 percent tax rate in one year. “That’s close enough to zero for me,” he said.
Still, Reid claims that Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years. Moreover, he claims to base this on information from a Bain investor, without explaining how someone not intimately familiar with Romney’s tax situation would know details of his taxes.
We asked a Reid spokesman for more backup information and for the name of a tax expert who could back up Reid’s claim but did not receive a response.
The Pinocchio Test
 We use a reasonable person standard here. Without seeing Romney’s taxes, we cannot definitively prove Reid  incorrect. But tax experts say his claim is highly improbable. Reid also has made no effort to explain why his unnamed source would be credible. So, in the absence of more information, it appears he has no basis to make his incendiary claim.
 Moreover, Reid holds a position of great authority in the U.S. Congress.  He should hold himself to a high standard of accuracy when making claims about political opponents.

Four Pinocchios
 

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .
Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads