by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
A soda tax in Philadelphia, implemented specifically to raise revenue (not to fight obesity) has failed to bring in the projected funds promised by the tax wizards. The tax was supposed to raise some $92 million a year, but people have taken to purchasing their soft drinks outside of the city, because the tax that is levied is a 1.5-cent per ounce tax.
The Tax Foundation studied the tax and its effects and found that, “According to some local distributors and retailers, sales have declined by nearly 50 percent. This is likely primarily due to higher prices, which discourage purchasing beverages in the city. Earlier this year PepsiCo announced it was laying off up to 100 workers because of the tax, which the company blames for costing a 43 percent drop in business. Philadelphians are also no longer able to buy 12-packs or 2-liters of Pepsi products in grocery stores due to the tax.”
This loss of revenue has begun to create further problems with the city budget. The tax was first passed to fund pre-K programs, but “in practice it awards just 49 percent of the soda tax revenues to local pre-K programs. Another 20 percent of the soda tax revenues fund government employee benefits or city programs, while the rest of the money will go towards parks, libraries, and community schools.” Thus, in July, city officials had to lower their beverage revenue projections which in turn affects the pre-K programs that are supposed to be funded by the tax.
In the final nail of absurdity, the report found that “that the tax is 24 times higher than the Pennsylvania tax rate on beer.”
Folks, here’s a prime example of how people change their behaviors — even the simplest ones like buying soda — in response to egregious, illogical, taxes.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, NEW YORK, POLITICS, TAXES
Mayor DeBlasio released a new plan to add a “nearly 14 percent tax increase on high-income Big Apple residents” in order to raise money for various transportation projects. It is projected to raise $800 million/year and would be used to pay for subway repairs, bus system upgrades, and low-income train rides.
DeBlasio pitched a city income tax hike that “would raise the rate for individuals making more than $500,000 and married couples earning over $1 million from 3.876 percent to 4.41 percent.” That translates into ” an additional $2,700 levy on an individual earning $1 million a year, and an additional $8,000 on an individual earning $2 million.”
Using quintessential class warfare speech, DeBlasio invoked Obama’s favorite phrases about the “top 1 percent” who “can afford to do a bit more” arguing that “a transit system that works makes New York City’s economy strong and benefits us all.” What he forgot to mention is that New York City is already one of the top tax-heavy localities in the United States for high income earners, who fork over 50% of their income in combined city, state, and federal taxes. Ridiculous, money-grubbing schemes like these continue to be the reason why the wealthy continue their mass exodus from the area.
by | BLOG, TAXES
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have published data which projects that 1,332 counties (over 40%) will have only one health insurer on Obamacare in 2018 and 49 will have none. According to CNSNews, “the data comes from the Health Insurance Exchanges Issuer County Map, which shows projected issuer participation on the Health Insurance Exchanges in 2018 based on the issuer public announcements made prior to late July of 2017.”
Successful healthcare systems do not continuously lose insurers, accumulate massive debt, and leave citizens with little to no choice. Obamacare has continued to wreak havoc on our citizens. It has to go. We can do better.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Last week, the Social Security Board of Trustees released their annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The news does not continue to bode will for the long-term survival of Social Security — but on the other hand, this is nothing that we haven’t heard before. Unfortunately, no one really wants to tackle the problem of reform.
Straight from their press release:
“The Social Security Board of Trustees today released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2034, the same as projected last year, with 77 percent of benefits payable at that time. The DI Trust Fund will become depleted in 2028, extended from last year’s estimate of 2023, with 93 percent of benefits still payable.
In the 2017 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:
- The asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds increased by $35 billion in 2016 to a total of $2.85 trillion.
- The combined trust fund reserves are still growing and will continue to do so through 2021. Beginning in 2022, the total annual cost of the program is projected to exceed income. (emphasis added)
- The year when the combined trust fund reserves are projected to become depleted, if Congress does not act before then, is 2034 – the same as projected last year. At that time, there will be sufficient income coming in to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
“It is time for the public to engage in the important national conversation about how to keep Social Security strong,” said Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. “People understand the value of their earned Social Security benefits and the importance of keeping the program secure for the future.”
Other highlights of the Trustees Report include:
- Total income, including interest, to the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $957 billion in 2016. ($836 billion in net contributions, $33 billion from taxation of benefits, and $88 billion in interest)
- Total expenditures from the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $922 billion in 2016.
- Social Security paid benefits of $911 billion in calendar year 2016. There were about 61 million beneficiaries at the end of the calendar year.
- Non-interest income fell below program costs in 2010 for the first time since 1983. Program costs are projected to exceed non-interest income throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.
- The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long-range period is 2.83 percent of taxable payroll – 0.17 percentage point larger than in last year’s report.
- During 2016, an estimated 171 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes.
- The cost of $6.2 billion to administer the Social Security program in 2016 was a very low 0.7 percent of total expenditures.
- The combined Trust Fund asset reserves earned interest at an effective annual rate of 3.2 percent in 2016.
The Board of Trustees usually comprises six members. Four serve by virtue of their positions with the federal government: Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee; Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; Thomas E. Price, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services; and R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor. The two public trustee positions are currently vacant.”
View the 2017 Trustees Report at www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2017/.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TRUMP
Daniel Mitchell from CATO put together a round-up over of articles over the last few days from various sources chiming in their opinion of Session’s expansion of asset forfeiture. It was published on International Liberty. The list is below; you should also read the article its entirety.
Writing for USA Today, Professor Glenn Reynolds correctly castigates the Attorney General for his actions.
David French of National Review is similarly disgusted.
Erick Erickson adds his condemnation in the Resurgent.
In a column for Reason, Damon Root of Reason adds his two cents.
Last but not least, the editors of National Review make several important points.
One last point of note that Mitchell included is that “the first two administrators of the federal government’s asset forfeiture program now want it to be repealed.”
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced yesterday that civil asset forfeiture would continue to be a viable practice among law enforcement. In fact, Sessions went so far as to roll-back asset forfeiture restrictions that were put in place during the Obama Administration after a series of high-profile cases and reports revealed egregious misuses of the law which resulted in billions in seizures over several years for state and federal agencies. Sessions announced, “We will continue to encourage civil asset forfeiture whenever appropriate in order to hit organized crime in the wallet.”
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.
“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.” I gave credit to Obama for addressing asset forfeiture and restrictions were rightly implemented as a stepping stone to reign in this abominable practice. Sessions is now loosening those once again.
According to Reason, “The Justice Department did include several requirements that it says will safeguard the due process rights of property owners. The directives require state and local police to provide additional information showing probable cause that a crime occurred before federal authorities will adopt the seizure. Seizures of under $10,000 will have to be accompanied by a warrant, a related arrest, or the seizure of contraband. Absent those provisions, a U.S. attorney would have to sign off on an adoption.
Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent of asset forfeiture last month 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.”
Thomas is right to condemn the practice. Asset forfeiture is a practice that denies citizens the right to due process; no one should lose property because of mere suspicion of criminal behavior. Sessions and the Department of Justice is wrong on this matter.
For interested parties, here’s a link to the entire policy directive:
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised to read an article by AEI (“This health care tax could spark a GOP civil war,” July 13, 2017) which treated the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT) as a pesky tax that was wreaking havoc on health care reform, because <gasp>, some Republicans wanted to eliminate it.
But nobody has been talking about the series of tax changes that occurred when Obama and his Democrat cronies passed the Obamacare increases in the first place. These raised the Bush tax rates on only the wealthiest from 36% – 39.6 % and then again raised the tax rates on the wealthiest by adding the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT), which covered all investment income. Then there was the 0.9% Obamacare Medicare surtax on upper-income earners. Obamacare increases also raised capital gains on the wealthiest ones from 15% – 20%. When the 3.8% tax would get tacked on, capital gains rates effectively went from 15%- 23.8% — an increase of about 55%. Taxes like these punish investment!
How is that not ridiculous? Or rather, how is it considered ridiculous that some Republicans want to eliminate the NIIT? Democrats continuously refer to it as an “upper-class tax cut.” Don’t fall for the rhetoric!
