by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, SCOTUS, TAXES
This week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of taxation for businesses that lack a physical nexus. Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority opinion, believed that the emergence of the internet as a mainstream medium for interstate commerce caused the physical presence rule to become further removed from economic reality and resulted in significant revenue losses to states.
The revenue loss argument is nonsense; it is a back-door way for states to add additional levies on their citizens under the guise of leveling the playing field . For years now, we’ve been hearing the protestations that there is dearth of tax revenue from which states are suffering terribly.
But this is simply and patently untrue. State legislatures have always set their tax rates with the full understanding that they would not actually collect that supposed billions of internet “slippage”. It’s not like there is a line item in state budgets that lists “uncollected online tax” or “tax cheats” with a number attached. Sales tax is merely one of many levies whose revenues positively fund government spending. This online tax will now just be yet another tax (and therefore revenue) for the coffers. Higher marginal rates exists because state-government spending levels are higher — not because of some “absence of tax” nonsense that forces states to raise rates.
In our states’ budgets, current taxes rates (income + sales, if applicable) are set at levels appropriate to cover the calculations of state spending. 49 out of 50 states require a balanced budget. These states are fully aware that taxes are “avoided” (internet and out-of-state) and therefore don’t even count them in their budget calculations. So there is no concrete “absence of revenue”. Instead, by passing this new internet tax, states are now given free reign to add a tax without taking the political heat for it, under the guise of “fairness”.
Looked at it another way, it is unconscionable for this ruling to stand without Congressional action that requires states to lower their marginal rates so that the new tax makes everything revenue neutral. Higher marginal rates as they are already burden taxpayers. This internet tax doesn’t fix anything — because there is nothing in their budgets to be “fixed”. True tax reform (a true “fix”) always means broadening the base and thereby reducing the overall burden of taxes. Instead of that, what we have with ruling will be a revenue grab.
Another fallacy for supporters is that including the internet tax in transactions is simply a matter of adding a quick, little tax line where there was none before. But it is highly irrational for legislators to believe that compliance with multiple tax jurisdictions for vendors will be an easy and unburdensome process. The recordkeeping will be excruciating. From an accountant’s perspective, here’s how:
The effect of distressing our businesses to comply with this online tax collection will be a drag on the economy. Can you imagine vendors needing to figure such things as whether marshmallows are a taxable food/candy in some jurisdictions while it might be a non-taxable food in others? To think that software can seamlessly make this distinction is ludicrous (especially software run by the government.) When has the government ever actually streamlined anything?
Internet tax collection for 10,000 local tax jurisdictions or even just 50 states is too much. If such a tax is to be implemented, it should be either a tax in which every state accepts one set of rules OR a tax payable to the state-of-sale only — which would ultimately be better for tax competition overall. Without a fix, compliance will certainly be massive and burdensome — which will hurt this economy that is slowing but surely recovering from the last ten years.
Arthur Laffer observed that “the principle of levying the lowest possible tax rate on the broadest possible tax base is the way to improve the incentives to work, save and produce which are necessary to reinvigorate the American economy and cope with the nation’s fiscal problems”. But a hodge-podge “internet tax” doesn’t do that. Without a solid Congressional solution for correctly calculating and remitting sales tax in 10,000+ jurisdictions, we will have a nightmare for accountants and businesses — at the cost of grabbing another revenue stream for our bloated, overspending government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
The Washington Post recently published a ridiculous article about deficit spending and entitlements from a group of former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Unsurprisingly, these economists scoff at the idea that entitlements are a cause for alarm, and predictably attack the Jobs and Tax bill that passed last year by President Trump. Of course, it’s to be expected, as the author-contributors were hand-picked from either only the Clinton or Obama administrations. Let’s take a closer look at some of their assertions:
“It is dishonest to single out entitlements for blame. The federal budget was in surplus from 1998 through 2001, (read: Pro-Clinton), “but large tax cuts and unfunded wars have been huge contributors to our current deficit problem” (read: anti-Bush). “The primary reason the deficit in coming years will now be higher than had been expected is the reduction in tax revenue from last year’s tax cuts, not an increase in spending” (read: anti-Trump). “This year, revenue is expected to fall below 17 percent of gross domestic product — the lowest it has been in the past 50 years with the exception of the aftermath of the past two recessions” (read: anti-Trump).
What’s noticeably absent? Any mention of Obama. Where were these so-called economists when Obama went spending crazy? When the deficit doubled in the eight years of Obama’s administration? Deficit spending is an undisputed crisis and a large driver of that is, in fact, entitlements — a problem that has continued to be punted each year; in fact the latest SSA report, released June 5, plainly states that Medicare’s Trust Fund is set to run out in 8 years, and Social Security’s in 16. The Social Security program’s costs will exceed its income this year for the first time since 1982, forcing the program to dip into its nearly $3 trillion trust fund to cover benefits. But these numbers and projections are nothing new, so it is right for the Hoover Institute to continue to insist on reform in the face of years of inaction.
At a time when these very authors note that “the U.S. unemployment rate is down to 4.1 percent, and economic growth could well increase in 2018. Consumer and business confidence is high,” to then hold up Clinton as the pinnacle of economic excellence, spear Bush and Trump as reckless, and to completely ignore the profligate spending of Obama is disingenuous. The bias of the Washington Post shines through with this one.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, TAXES
Now that home-buying season is upon us, is it any wonder that high income tax states and property tax states are again seeing an exodus from the excessive burden? With the Jobs and Tax Cut Act — which rightly capped deductions of state and local taxes — some taxpayers are feeling a “disproportionate” share of cost as taxation is properly realigned. It’s no wonder that high tax states such as New York and California are being traded for places like Florida and Nevada. When lawmakers recklessly spend their constituents money and then finally have to reconcile it, taxpayers who are fed up with mismanagement are smart to seek refuge elsewhere.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TRUMP
George Will shined the light on yet another disturbing case of civil asset forfeiture a practice that denies citizens the right to due process. In this particular instance, a border agent on US soil unlawfully demanded the password a citizen’s phone; when he refused, they searched his truck and then seized possession of it after finding five .380-caliber bullets (and no weapon) in the truck’s center console. Their rationale? He was transporting “munitions of war.”
Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to take money or property from a citizen who is merely suspected of criminal activity — not charged or convicted. Though original asset forfeiture laws were aimed at drug cartels to interrupt their business and money, it use has expanded rapidly in recent years. It’s not being used just for “organized crime” anymore; that’s a red herring that gives police a green light to continue to abuse citizens and take their property without due process. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent and have to prove that they were not involved in any criminal activity, which can be a long and expensive process against the government.
Outrageously, the citizen had to petition to get a judicial hearing about his truck (after paying a bond of 10% of his truck’s value) — but then the hearing actually never happened. He never got his due process and only got his truck back after two years, during which he faithfully continued making loan payments and maintained insurance. This lack of any hearing for a citizen to redress the unlawful seizure is not an anomaly, either. In fact, the citizen is now pursuing a class action lawsuit, just “to establish a right to prompt post-seizure judicial hearings,” which should already be a given anyway in such incidences — even though the practice of civil asset forfeiture should be abolished outright.
Civil asset forfeiture is really all about money. “Under the equitable sharing program, federal authorities may “adopt” state and local forfeiture cases and prosecute them at the federal level. Those local police departments get to keep up to 80 percent of the forfeiture revenue, while the rest goes into the equitable sharing pool and is distributed among partner departments around the country.” During the Obama Administration — after some highly publicized appalling asset forfeiture cases, Obama began addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Unfortunately last year, AG Jeff Sessions loosened those once again.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last year when SCOTUS chose not to hear a case on the matter. He wrote, “this system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses. He further pointed out, “because the law enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” Clarence Thomas is entirely correct, and the policy of civil asset forfeiture should be entirely eliminated. Continuing to highlight this abhorrent practice is the only way to bring about change.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POTUS, TRUMP
It seems like spending reductions, smaller government, and eliminating waste are no longer Republican ideals. When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos presented a budget that did just that, Congress turned a deaf ear. What’s more, they made it difficult for her to even make some systemic changes to the Department of Education that (like most departments) desperately needs.
As part of the massive spending bill that was passed last week, Congress “awarded the department a $2.6 billion boost when Mrs. DeVos had requested a $9 billion cut. She had sought to dismantle her agency’s central budget office, a move she said would create a leaner structure, and to cut the number of field offices in the civil-rights division to four from 12. The spending package included specific measures preventing her from doing so.”
Apparently, trying to implement change caused some problems among more seasoned politicians that Congress just put a stop to by hamstringing her efforts at education and fiscal reform: “in the spending package, lawmakers forbade Mrs. DeVos from dismantling the budget office and increased the civil-rights division’s funding by $8.5 million, specifying that the additional money couldn’t be used to reduce staff, such as through buyouts. The civil-rights division is tasked with, among other things, enforcing Title IX.”
It’s a shame that politics over policy has gotten so pervasive even among Republicans. Such ridiculous behavior shows how broken our system has become — which is why it’s getting more and more likely that a huge Democrat sweep will happen at midterms.
by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, POTUS, TAXES, TRUMP
Part of Obama’s terrible legacy was his frequent abusive use of Executive Order, even maintaining a “We Can’t Wait” page on the White House website. From changing student loan rules to immigration reform, Obama was rightly chided for making major policy changes without going through Congress.
It is therefore egregious that President Trump should decided to enact a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on imported aluminum products under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (the provision that allows additional tariffs when national security is affected).
When our largest importer of steel is Canada, followed by Brazil, South Korea and Mexico, it is abhorrent to invoke such a tariff under these pretenses. This particular Executive Order rivals Obama in making up lies to justify illegal executive action.
It also makes it possible for the next Democrat President to abuse presidential power by saying: “It’s not as big a whopper as Trump’s saying that tariffs on steel are needed to protect our nation’s security”. This is truly a terrible precedent.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS
Did you even notice that whenever the economy issues good results (a strong jobs report, etc.), the stock market goes DOWN? Logic would seemingly have it be the opposite. If the economy was strong, one would assume the stock market would respond positively. But often that’s not really the case.
For years, I couldn’t understand it — how stupid could the market be? Why would the market do poorly? Wall Street professionals claim to understand it. They point out that the stock market and economy are not necessarily affected the same way. When the economy is strong, the market has often already gone up in anticipation of the improving economy. But with the stronger economy, the Fed is likely to hike interest rates, threatening the strong growth going forward. Also, with interest rates rising, investors have the alternative of earning fixed, safe rates of return by buying bonds.
Though I do follow that logic, I do not agree with it. My strong belief is that as long as the economy is strong, with sound existing economic policies in place, I believe that financial growth and profitability will continue. And I would view downturns caused by positive financial results as a buying opportunity.
The economy has begun the road to renewed growth – finally getting rid of the Obama stagnation caused by increasing taxes, stifling regulation, and anti-business sentiment. It’s unreasonable to believe that the concern of interest rates should have more sway than a growing economy. Even if interest rates rise, does anyone really believe that a business will forego an expansion opportunity just because borrowing costs are 1 or 2 percentage points higher?
Of course, it would make sense for the stock market to become weaker if President Trump goes ahead with his economically ignorant tariff and anti-free-trade policies, as well as his economically stagnating immigration restrictions.
But as for now, the fluctuations are a confirmation of a stronger economy and the multiple opportunities afforded to investors.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, TAXES
The IRS recently announced plans to “close a loophole,” suggesting that hedge-fund managers have been suddenly trying avoid paying higher taxes on carried-interest profits. This issue, however, is really a non-starter, and should not be getting the coverage that it is.
The IRS wrote a rule that exempts carried interest from a longer holding period when it’s paid to a corporation rather than an individual. But it didn’t specify that it applied solely to regular corporations, whose income is subject to double taxation. What some are ridiculously suggesting is that an S-Corp “loophole” exists to allow a hedge fund manager to treat a two- or three -year capital gain as long- term. That is a joke.
When the IRS wrote the rule, they said it applies for all flow-thru, but not corporations. The reason why is because corporations don’t have capital gains rate. So if you have a hedge-fund manager for a corporation, they pay taxes at regular rates. All of a sudden, some people are suggesting that hedge fund managers might make their entity an S-Corp, so they could get the one-year provision instead of the three-year provision.
It should be obvious to anyone that the law would be implemented as applying to non flow-thru entities only. It only affects the one year holding period which was raised to three. This is unimportant anyway, because most (and certainly most substantial) gains usually take more than three years to develop anyway.
Almost every article published on this subject also incorrectly states that carried interests converts ordinary income to capital gain. In fact, it simply allocates to the manager income of the same nature as earned – ordinary, dividend, short or long-term gain.
You could probably fix the law by adding a couple of words of clarification. Every tax law is subject to the Technical Corrections Act, which is page and pages of errors that get changed. Yet all of a sudden, people are writing articles about it the rule being a loophole. It’s not, and it’s nonsense. This issue should not be getting any serious attention.
