by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, TAXES
I always look forward to CNSNews each month when they do a roundup of the prior month’s spending and revenue. Their numbers come directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement released by mid-month for the previous month. Because they’ve been doing it for so long, they are able to often do comparison for previous months and years, which provide nice little tidbits of info.
The big takeaway from this month is, despite record revenue, the Trump administration still ran a deficit due to excessive spending. Their summary is reposted below in its entirety:
“The U.S. Treasury hauled in $240,418,000,000 in total taxes in the month of May, setting a record for inflation-adjusted tax revenues for that month of the year, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released this week.
Despite these record revenues, however, the federal government still ran a deficit of $88,426,000,000 in May—because it spent $328,844,000,000 in the month.
In the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May), the federal government hauled in $2,169,160,000,000 in total taxes and spent $2,602,013,000,000—thus, running a deficit of $432,853,000,000. Fiscal 2017 will end on Sept. 30, 2017.
Prior to this year, fiscal 2006 held the record for most federal taxes collected in the month of May. That year, the Treasury collected $232,837,160,000 (in constant 2017 dollars) during May.
The third largest tax haul the federal government ever achieved in the month of May was last year (fiscal 2016), when the Treasury collected $228,814,030,000 (in constant 2017 dollars.)
While the $240,418,000,000 that the Treasury collected this May set a record for federal tax revenues in the month May, federal tax collections in the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May) did not set a record.
That distinction is still held by fiscal 2016—the last full fiscal year of President Barack Obama’s tenure.
In October through May of fiscal 2016, the Treasury collected $2,179,362,400,000 in total tax revenues (in constant 2017 dollars). That was $10,202,400,000 more than the $2,169,160,000,000 that the Treasury collected in October through May of this fiscal year.
(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
The $240,418,000,000 in taxes the federal government collected in the month of May 2017 equaled approximately $1,572 for each of the 152,923,000 people the Bureau of Labor Statistics said had a job in the United States during the month.
The $88,246,000,000 deficit the Treasury ran during May equaled approximately $577 for each of the 152,923,000 people with a job.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
We’ve written about the collapse of many Obamacare markets as well as the removal of several insurers from the Obamacare system across multiple states and exchanges. Earlier this year Aetna Inc. and Wellmark Inc. announced that they would not participate in Iowa for 2018 due to unsustainable costs; only the insurer Medica would be available in the state.
In response, Bloomberg reports that “Iowa is asking the Trump administration to let it reallocate millions of dollars and create a stopgap program that would provide health insurance options for 72,000 Iowans covered by the Affordable Care Act.
Under the proposal made public on Monday, the state would use $352 million in federal money to provide backup funding for insurers and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies for consumers next year. The state would also create a single standardized plan that insurers would offer.”
Iowa’s proposal has three main pieces:
- It would create a standard plan, pegged to Obamacare’s mid-level silver offering. Insurers and consumers who want the extra help would need to buy that plan.
- The state would use about $220 million of funding to provide the new subsidies.
- And the state would create a reinsurance program, funded with an estimated $80 million, to help insurers deal with high-cost claims.
The program needs to be approved by the Trump administration and would be known as a “Stopgap” measure while the future of Obamacare gets played out in Congress. Nonetheless, the current form of Obamacare is financially unstable; expect to see more of these types of proposals in the coming months.
by | IRS
Issue Number: IR-2017-105
Inside This Issue
Taxpayers Abroad Must File by June 15; Extensions Available; New Filing Deadline Now Applies to Foreign Account Reports
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded taxpayers living and working abroad that they must file their 2016 federal income tax return by Thursday, June 15.
The special June 15 deadline is available to both U.S. citizens and resident aliens abroad, including those with dual citizenship. For those who can’t meet the June 15 deadline, tax-filing extensions are available and they can even be requested electronically. In addition, a new filing deadline now applies to anyone with a foreign bank or financial account required to file an annual report for these accounts, often referred to as an FBAR.
Here is a rundown of key points to keep in mind:
Most People Abroad Need to File An income tax filing requirement generally applies even if a taxpayer qualifies for tax benefits, such as the Foreign Earned Income exclusion or the Foreign Tax credit, which substantially reduce or eliminate U.S. tax liability. These tax benefits are only available if an eligible taxpayer files a U.S. income tax return. A taxpayer qualifies for the special June 15 filing deadline if both their tax home and abode are outside the United States and Puerto Rico. Those serving in the military outside the U.S. and Puerto Rico also qualify for the extension to June 15.
Be sure to attach a statement indicating which of these two situations applies. Interest, currently at the rate of four percent per year, compounded daily, still applies to any tax payment received after the original April 18 deadline. For details, see the When To File and Pay section in Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad. Special Income Tax Return Reporting for Foreign Accounts and Assets
Federal law requires U.S. citizens and resident aliens to report any worldwide income, including income from foreign trusts and foreign bank and securities accounts. In most cases, affected taxpayers need to complete and attach Schedule B to their tax return. Part III of Schedule B asks about the existence of foreign accounts, such as bank and securities accounts, and usually requires U.S. citizens to report the country in which each account is located.
In addition, certain taxpayers may also have to complete and attach to their return Form 8938, Statement of Foreign Financial Assets. Generally, U.S. citizens, resident aliens and certain nonresident aliens must report specified foreign financial assets on this form if the aggregate value of those assets exceeds certain thresholds. See the instructions for this form for details.
Choose Free File
U.S. citizens and resident aliens living abroad can use IRS Free File to prepare and electronically file their returns for free. This means both U.S. citizens and resident aliens living abroad with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of $64,000 or less can use brand-name software to prepare their returns and then e-file them for free. A limited number of companies provide software that can accommodate foreign addresses.
A second option, Free File Fillable Forms, the electronic version of IRS paper forms, has no income limit and is best suited to people who are comfortable preparing their own tax return.
Both the e-file and Free File electronic filing options are available until Oct. 16, 2017, for anyone filing a 2016 return. Check out the e-file link on IRS.gov for details on the various electronic filing options. Free File is not available to nonresident aliens required to file Form 1040NR.
Automatic Extensions Available Taxpayers abroad who can’t meet the June 15 deadline can still get more time to file, but they need to ask for it. Their extension request must be filed by June 15. Automatic extensions give people until Oct. 16, 2017, to file; however, this does not extend the time to pay tax. An easy way to get the extra time to file is through the Free File link on IRS.gov. In a matter of minutes, anyone, regardless of income, can use this free service to electronically request an extension on Form 4868. To get the extension, taxpayers must estimate their tax liability on this form and pay any amount due.Another option for taxpayers is to pay electronically and get an extension of time to file. IRS will automatically process an extension when taxpayers select Form 4868 and they are making a full or partial federal tax payment using Direct Pay, the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) or a debit or credit card. There is no need to file a separate Form 4868 when making an electronic payment and indicating it is for an extension. Electronic payment options are available atIRS.gov/payments. International taxpayers who do not have a U.S. bank account should refer to the Foreign Electronic Paymentssection on IRS.gov for more payment options and information.Combat Zone Taxpayers get More Time Without Having to Ask for it Members of the military and eligible support personnel serving in a combat zone have at least 180 days after they leave the combat zone to file their tax returns and pay any taxes due. This includes those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat zone localities. A complete list of designated combat zone localities can be found in Publication 3, Armed Forces’ Tax Guide, available on IRS.gov. Various circumstances affect the exact length of the extension available to any given taxpayer. Details, including examples illustrating how these extensions are calculated, can be found in the Extensions of Deadlines section in Publication 3.
New Deadline for Reporting Foreign Accounts
Starting this year, the deadline for filing the annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) is now the same as for a federal income tax return. This means that the 2016 FBAR, Form 114, was normally required to be filed electronically with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) by April 18, 2017. But FinCEN is granting filers missing the original deadline an automatic extension until Oct. 16, 2017 to file the FBAR. Specific extension requests are not required. In the past, the FBAR deadline was June 30 and no extensions were available. In general, the FBAR filing requirement applies to anyone who had an interest in, or signature or other authority, over foreign financial accounts whose aggregate value exceeded $10,000 at any time during 2016. Because of this threshold, the IRS encourages taxpayers with foreign assets, even relatively small ones, to check if this filing requirement applies to them. The form is only available through the BSA E-filing System website. Report in U.S. Dollars Any income received or deductible expenses paid in foreign currency must be reported on a U.S. tax return in U.S. dollars. Likewise, any tax payments must be made in U.S. dollars.
Both Forms 114 and 8938 require the use of a Dec. 31 exchange rate for all transactions, regardless of the actual exchange rate on the date of the transaction. Generally, the IRSaccepts any posted exchange rate that is used consistently. For more information on exchange rates, see Foreign Currency and Currency Exchange Rates.
Expatriate Reporting
Taxpayers who relinquished their U.S. citizenship or ceased to be lawful permanent residents of the United States during 2016 must file a dual-status alien return, attaching Form 8854, Initial and Annual Expatriation Statement. A copy of the Form 8854 must also be filed with Internal Revenue Service Philadelphia, PA 19255-0049, by the due date of the tax return (including extensions). See the instructions for this form and Notice 2009-85, Guidance for Expatriates Under Section 877A, for further details.
More Information Available Any U.S. taxpayer here or abroad with tax questions can refer to the International Taxpayers landing page and use the online IRS Tax Map and the International Tax Topic Index to get answers. These online tools group IRS forms, publications and web pages by subject and provide users with a single entry point to find tax information. Taxpayers who are looking for return preparers abroad should visit the Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers with Credentials and Select Qualifications.
To help avoid delays with tax refunds, taxpayers living abroad should visit the Helpful Tips for Effectively Receiving a Tax Refund for Taxpayers Living Abroad page.
More information on the tax rules that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens living abroad can be found in, Publication 54, Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad, available onIRS.gov.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
The idea of “disparate impact” holds that a defendant can be held liable for racism and discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. This tactic was increasingly used in recent years during the Obama Administration, most often by Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, and Thomas Perez, his Secretary of Labor.
It follows then that minimum wage laws are racist and discriminatory. There’s no question that the effect these policies have on minorities are unfavorable. The citizens who are going to lose their jobs or will be unable to get jobs as a result of raising the cost of wages are disproportionately larger populations of minorities. If you can impute and infer racial bias because of an adverse impact and then use it to determine the legality of a law, it is unequivocally clear that minimum wage laws should be deemed unconstitutional.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS
23% of Puerto Ricans voted today for a statehood referendum, and 97% of them cast a vote in favor of it. 1.5% percent voted for independence from the United States, according to Decision Desk HQ, while 1.3% voted to keep the current status of a territory of the United States.
The catalyst for this vote for statehood — the first one since 2012 — was the declaration of a form of bankruptcy in early May. Many did not vote because the vote actually did nothing. Congress would still have to formally agree to statehood, which is highly unlikely due to its crippling debt.
Last month, Puerto Rico sought financial relief in federal court, “the first time in history that an American state or territory had taken the extraordinary measure. The action sent Puerto Rico, whose approximately $123 billion in debt and pension obligations far exceeds the $18 billion bankruptcy filed by Detroit in 2013, to uncharted ground.”
I have written numerous times on Puerto Rico in the past due to business there over the years. My take has always been about reduction; reducing the size and scope of government is a major key part of getting Puerto Rico back on track.
Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is the result of years of government mismanagement. Dozens of agencies and publicly owned corporations have run deficits year after year, making up the difference by borrowing from bond markets, though there was a brief respite during the year of Governor Fortuño. Puerto Ricans must have to first experience tough reforms and cutbacks help Puerto Rico thrive once again.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
From the LATimes:
A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.
The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.
Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.
“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.” (emphasis added)
Lara’s bill would provide a Medicare-for-all-type system that he believed would guarantee health coverage for all Californians without the out-of-pocket costs. Under a single-payer plan, the government replaces private insurance companies, paying doctors and hospitals for healthcare.
The California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill, released a fiscal analysis this week that proposed raising the state sales and business receipts taxes by 2.3% to raise $106 billion of the annual cost, with the rest proposed to come from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services.
Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The state of California is already facing severe financial difficulties. To try to actually implement something like this, at so staggering a cost, would be reckless for the taxpayers of California. Hopefully, commonsense will prevail.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
President Donald Trump told the American public that he wants to keep Obamacare, at least to the extent of the provisions that protect individuals with pre-existing conditions and allow 26 years olds to stay on their parent’s plan.
This is, in fact, a ridiculous comment. Most people (myself included) believe that a competent Health Plan would contain these provisions. And they will. But they will be part of a new plan which will be entirely rewritten. No part of Obamacare should be retained. It needs to be repealed in total.
The new replacement for Obamacare can (and should) have provisions for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance and even keeping 26 year olds on the plan (possibly), but not in the way the law is currently written. Free market pricing will keep overall costs down, and with respect to individuals whose premiums become unaffordable (due to pre-existing conditions, low income, etc) there could be risk-pools and/or subsidies to deal with the issues. The Obamacare method of forced overpayments and intrusively detailed regulation with perverse incentives on every component of health care, has failed. That’s why we’ve been seeing an exodus of insurers; they simply cannot sustain their fiscal health they way the current system is.
Only by replacing the law with one that focuses on free-market solutions can we make progress in fixing our health system to actually help our citizens and in a fiscally sound way.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, POLITICS, TAXES
The National Review reprinted an article from their archives, first written on May 30, 1994. It recounts the media treatment of George Bush, Sr.’s tax returns from 1991. Not surprisingly, the analysis omitted certain facts from the return to make the Bushes appear to pay less income taxes for a high income earner, in order to satisfy a particular agenda.
It’s worth it to read the old article in its entirety to appreciate how such media manipulation has been going on for at least a generation.
“Donald Barlett and James Steele are two of the most successful journalists in the United States. As reporters for the Philadelphia Inquirer, they have won two Pulitzer Prizes. Their gargantuan nine-part series, “America: What Went Wrong?,” was published in 1992 and reprinted in numerous newspapers. The series became an immediate best-seller when it was turned into the book of the same name.
Barlett and Steele’s new book, America: Who Really Pays the Taxes?, has now been excerpted, syndicated, and run as a series in newspapers throughout the United States. It is undoubtedly destined for the same bestseller status. The authors’ answer to the question posed in the new book’s title is — not surprisingly, in light of their earlier work — that the tax system is rigged against average Americans, who pay more than their fair share of income taxes while higher-income Americans pay less.
This thesis is demonstrably false. Although average Americans are indeed overburdened by taxes, upper-income taxpayers are even more so. Furthermore, although Barlett and Steele have described themselves as supplying “detailed information” that their readers “can get nowhere else,” their economic journalism constitutes little more than slanted anecdotes mixed with statistical sleight-of-hand.
Every year, the Internal Revenue Service analyzes tax returns and publishes data showing how much income was reported and how much tax paid by taxpayers in various income groups. These IRS figures are widely distributed, and no one writing an entire book on the subject could possibly be unaware of them. Barlett and Steele’s avoidance of these hard data is easy to understand, however, because the IRS figures destroy their thesis. In 1991, the most recent year for which the figures have been compiled, the top 1 percent of tax filers reported 13 percent of the nation’s total adjusted gross income (i.e., before most deductions), but paid 24.6 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of taxpayers reported 26.8 percent of the income, but paid 43.4 percent of the taxes. And the top 10 percent — those earning over $61,952 — reported 38.2 percent of the income, but paid 55.3 percent of the taxes. The bottom 50 percent of tax filers, by contrast, reported 15.1 percent of the income, but paid only 5.5 percent of the taxes, leaving 94.5 percent of the tax bill to be paid by those with above-average incomes.
Barlett and Steele contrast the present day with what they view as the golden era of the 1950s, when the top individual and corporate tax rates were higher than they are today. They argue that in recent years higher-income taxpayers have successfully pushed tax burdens onto those who are less well off. What Barlett and Steele fail to mention, however, is that the tax code of the 1950s was so riddled with loopholes that those top rates collected virtually no revenue because hardly anyone paid them. IRS data show that the share of the total tax burden borne by upper-income individuals grew steadily from 1981 to 1991. It is particularly noteworthy that since 1982, when marginal tax rates were cut across the board, the proportion of taxes paid by upper-income people has increased. The share paid by the top 1 percent of tax filers rose from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 24.6 percent in 1991; the share paid by the top 5 percent went from 35.1 to 43.4 percent; the share paid by the top 10 percent rose from 48.0 to 55.3 percent. It is clear, therefore, that the central theme of Barlett and Steele’s book is simply false.
Upper-income Americans pay a disproportionate and growing share of the total tax bill. If middle-income Americans are overtaxed — and they are — it is not because those above them on the economic scale are getting a free ride. The Bushes’ Tax Return Shoddy and uninformed economic analysis is bad enough, but Barlett and Steele’s portrayal of George and Barbara Bush’s taxpaying record can only be described as maliciously misleading. The authors argue that there are “two separate and distinct tax systems,” one for “the rich and powerful” and one for “everyone else.”
The centerpiece of their argument is a comparison of the 1991 taxes paid by the Bushes and those paid by an Oregon resident named Jacques Cotton. Under the rubric of “The Privileged Person’s Tax Law,” they report that George and Barbara Bush earned $1,324,456 in 1991 and paid a total of $239,063 — 18.1 per cent of their adjusted gross income in taxes. They report that Mr. Cotton, on the other hand, paid a total of $6,618 in state, federal, and Social Security taxes on a gross income of $33,499. Barlett and Steele calculate that these tax payments add up to 19.8 per cent of Mr. Cotton’s income, a slightly higher percentage than the Bushes paid. This calculation is set forth under the heading “The Common Person’s Tax Law.” Barlett and Steele conclude from this comparison that the American tax system “responds to the appeals of the powerful and influential and ignores the needs of the powerless.” That’s a rather sweeping conclusion to draw from a comparison of two out of millions of tax returns. But is the comparison a fair one to start with?
It didn’t take much investigation to find out that it isn’t. The Bushes’ 1991 tax return was made public when it was filed, and a number of news stories were written about it at the time. That return was newsworthy because the couple’s income that year was three times as high as in any other year of Bush’s Presidency. Why? Because Barbara Bush earned $889,176 in royalties on Millie’s Book, a humorous look at White House life written from the point of view of the family dog. And why were the Bushes’ taxes relatively low, compared to their income?
Because Barbara Bush donated substantially all of the proceeds of Millie’s Book to charity — $818,803, or 62 per cent of the couple’s income that year. They contributed to 49 different charities, everything from Ducks Unlimited to the United Negro College Fund, but the main beneficiary was the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, which received $789,176. After giving away more than 60 percent of their income to charity, George and Barbara Bush had $505,653 left, of which they paid $239,063 — 47 percent — in taxes.
Barlett and Steele must have known these facts, yet chose to mislead their readers by portraying George Bush as a greedy, tax-dodging rich person. We wondered why. In fact, we tried to find out why. We left numerous messages for Barlett and Steele, but they declined to return our calls. We faxed a letter to them asking a number of questions, including why they failed to disclose the Millie’s Book income and the Bushes’ extraordinarily generous charitable contributions. But they declined to respond. We also asked them for copies of their 1991 tax returns. Needless to say, we did not get them. But we think it highly unlikely that these tireless campaigners against greed have ever donated 62 percent of their very large incomes to charity.”
The same scenario plays out over and over again when we discuss marginal tax rates, tax cuts, and tax returns. The media plays upon the fact that most Americans don’t understand how everything works and uses that to stir the pot for class warfare. This article could have been written today, and serves as a reminder that these tactics are nothing new.
