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included is that “the first two administrators of the federal government’s asset forfeiture program now want it to be repealed.”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!
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
I have continuously written about the deplorable practice of asset forfeiture via the IRS. Many of the cases involve circumstances where the business is accused of “structuring” cash deposits to stay under $10,000 — which the IRS considers to be “suspicious,” not unlike drug money laundering. In such instances, the IRS can swoop in and seize the business bank accounts of the “offenders” while simultaneously NOT charge them with any crime.
This latest case regarding a business called Mii’s Bridal and Tuxedo involves an alleged IRS tax debt that had been in dispute between the business and the IRS. Just like in previous cases, the owners had not been charged with anything. In this instance, however, instead of raiding a bank account, the IRS seized the store’s inventory and liquidated its entire contents within four hours — while violating numerous IRS practices and federal laws along the way. In the end, another American business and the livelihood of its owners was destroyed.
According to the Dallas News, “Mii’s, a small Garland business owned by an elderly immigrant couple from Thailand, was never accused in court of violating any federal laws.” Within hours of IRS agents arriving in March 2015, “Mii’s Bridal & Tuxedo was out of business after serving customers for decades. Its entire inventory of wedding gowns and dresses as well as sewing machines and other equipment were sold at auction. The hastily-called sale held inside the store netted the IRS about $17,000 — not enough to cover the roughly $31,400 in tax debt alleged, court records show. The balance is now likely unrecoverable.”
Violations by the IRS agents include:
-“The lead agent brought four children to join the armed agents and tag along during the entire process. The children sat on a pallet with several boxes of pepperoni pizza while watching events unfold.
-The Dallas police assisted in the raid, and an off-duty Dallas Police officer in plain clothes bid on and purchased an auction item.
-Agents seized items they shouldn’t have, such as a Vietnam veteran’s hat left at Mii’s to have badges of honor sewed into it. The IRS refused to return the hat.
-The agents also seized video game consoles, a surround-sound music system and a 65-inch TV, which was not authorized by the judge’s order.”
What’s more, “When the agents arrived for the seizure, they told the Thangsongcharoens to give them a $10,000 check within two hours to avoid the sale of their roughly 1,600 “designer” gowns, worth more than $615,000. Regarding the speed of the sale, the government said in legal filings that the IRS used a special law that allows for a streamlined procedure if the agency determines the goods seized could “perish or waste” or become greatly reduced in value.
As a result, the IRS didn’t have to post advance public notice of the Mii’s sale or wait at least ten days before selling the goods, as is normally required. The provision also says a speedy auction can be used if storing the property would cost the IRS ‘great expense.'”
In response, the shop owners are suing in federal court, arguing “that the agents deliberately marked down the inventory to about $6,000 so they could claim it would cost more to store than it was worth. That comes to less than $4 per dress.” This allowed them to justify and proceed with the liquidation that destroyed their business, and forms a basis of their $1.8 million lawsuit.
That case has yet to be resolved. It doesn’t make up for the fact that everything hard-working couple had built over the last 30 years had been destroyed in one afternoon, when no crime had ever been committed. This is just one of a long list of citizen abuses that have happened under the egregious asset forfeiture laws that pervade the IRS and rob Americans of their civil liberties and their livelihoods, often with little to no recourse.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
- For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
- For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
- For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
- For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
- For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In Jefferson’s draft there is a part on slavery here
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
JOHN HANCOCK, President
Attested, CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary
- New Hampshire
- JOSIAH BARTLETT
WILLIAM WHIPPLE
MATTHEW THORNTON
- Massachusetts-Bay
- SAMUEL ADAMS
JOHN ADAMS
ROBERT TREAT PAINE
ELBRIDGE GERRY
- Rhode Island
- STEPHEN HOPKINS
WILLIAM ELLERY
- Connecticut
- ROGER SHERMAN
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON
WILLIAM WILLIAMS
OLIVER WOLCOTT
- Georgia
- BUTTON GWINNETT
LYMAN HALL
GEO. WALTON
- Maryland
- SAMUEL CHASE
WILLIAM PACA
THOMAS STONE
CHARLES CARROLL OF CARROLLTON
- Virginia
- GEORGE WYTHE
RICHARD HENRY LEE
THOMAS JEFFERSON
BENJAMIN HARRISON
THOMAS NELSON, JR.
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE
CARTER BRAXTON.
- New York
- WILLIAM FLOYD
PHILIP LIVINGSTON
FRANCIS LEWIS
LEWIS MORRIS
- Pennsylvania
- ROBERT MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
JOHN MORTON
GEORGE CLYMER
JAMES SMITH
GEORGE TAYLOR
JAMES WILSON
GEORGE ROSS
- Delaware
- CAESAR RODNEY
GEORGE READ
THOMAS M’KEAN
- North Carolina
- WILLIAM HOOPER
JOSEPH HEWES
JOHN PENN
- South Carolina
- EDWARD RUTLEDGE
THOMAS HEYWARD, JR.
THOMAS LYNCH, JR.
ARTHUR MIDDLETON
- New Jersey
- RICHARD STOCKTON
JOHN WITHERSPOON
FRANCIS HOPKINS
JOHN HART
ABRAHAM CLARK
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, 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.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
In this morning’s Washington Post, George Will penned a column proclaiming, “[G]ood news: You are as rich as John D. Rockefeller. Richer, actually.” Will drew inspiration for his column from my good friend Don Boudreaux, who is an economist at economist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and creator of one of my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayek.
“Boudreaux asks if you would accept this bargain: You can be as rich as Rockefeller was in 1916 if you consent to live in 1916.”
At various times on Cafe Hayek, Boudreaux explores the grandeur of being a billionaire 100 years ago along with the living conditions of the time and finds a stark contrast. As Will concurs, “Having bestowed the presidency on a candidate who described their country as a “hellhole” besieged by multitudes trying to get into it, Americans need an antidote for social hypochondria. So, thank Boudreaux for making you think about this: How large would your net worth have to be to get you to swap the life you are living in “hellhole” America for what that money could buy in 1916?”
Will’s article is worth reading in its entirety, and Boudreaux’s blog is invaluable for any serious student of economics.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
The clearest example yet of Media abuse of Donald Trump has surfaced in connection with the recently released excerpts from Pres. Trump’s 2005 federal income tax return. The return shows clearly and unambiguously that he paid an effective federal tax rate of 78.2%. Yet the press twisted the truth- outright lied – in reporting a tax rate of 25%, or even less.
It is outrageous that the media is distorting the true tax rate that Donald Trump paid for the 2005 tax year. His 1040 that was released last week showed that he paid an effective tax rate of 78.2% — not the 25% that some outlets are reporting (or the 5.3% figure that even other uninformed pundits have tried to peddle).
Let’s break this down: Trump’s Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) was reported to be $48.6 million. The AGI is an important number for all taxpayers, because it is derived from a taxpayer’s gross income net of allowable, rational, and legal adjustments to it. Every taxpayer reports an AGI and is the base figure from which taxable income amounts are calculated. Trump’s tax was $38million. Trump’s tax rate was effectively 78.2%: 38 million in federal taxes/48.6 million AGI = 78.2% tax rate.
In a clear attempt to avoid admitting that Trump paid such a high rate of tax, the pundits began manipulating and distorting the data. AGI was raised from $48.6 million to $152 million by arbitrarily – and inappropriately – adding back what appeared to be a $103 million perfectly legal carryover loss. Carryover loss provisions are necessary in that prevent people from paying taxes on profits that just restore losses that were actually incurred in a prior year.
Because Trump is a high income earner, he must calculate his taxes both by the regular tax rate and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT is a parallel tax rate used by the IRS that disallows some or all legal deductions and credits that other taxpayers enjoy to ensure that such taxpayers pay “at least their fair share.” The AMT has been used for decades to collect more taxes by denying or minimizing income-reducing tax benefits that lower income-earners use. In Trump’s case, most of his deductions, including the carryover loss, were disallowed or reduced, resulting in his federal tax liability ultimately rising to $38 million.
That means on Trump’s AGI of $48.6 million, he paid $38 million in federal taxes.
It is always standard procedure to calculate one’s tax rate using the AGI as the starting point — not the gross income amount. No other politician (Romney, Obama, Clinton, etc.) has had tax rates calculated and published with other than their adjusted gross income as the base. Applying the standard used by the media for all other important figures, Trump’s tax rate was effectively 78.2%: 38 million in federal taxes/48.6 million AGI = 78.2% tax rate.
Continuing to focus on the $153 million as the starting point serves the media two purposes: 1) it makes Trump sound like a greedy capitalist who earned gobs of money and is out-of-touch with the average American; and 2) they want to highlight his $103 carryover loss as something that is unethical or wrong or a “sneaky loophole” that Trump should not have been allowed to do — even though virtually every business and investor makes uses of such tax provisions. Carryover losses are a necessary tax tool that is used as a means to continue to encourage investors who put up capital for long-term investments in the economy and deal with the ebb and flow of the market.
The real story here is this glaring example of the AMT creating yet another unfair and irrational burden on a taxpayer by siphoning extra tax revenue through the elimination and reduction of basic tax law provisions that other taxpayers enjoy. A 78.2% tax rate is extremely outrageous — about as outrageous as the media who ignores basic tax calculations in an effort to sensationalize and demonize Trump.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Daniel Henninger was spot on in his assessment of the Middlebury College in his article, “McCarthyism at Middlebury” in the Wall Street Journal. Students shockingly felt justified to attack Charles Murray, a conservative pundit, because he had a viewpoint that differed from their own. Henninger puts this incident into perspective; this display of recklessness might actually be a turning point in the madness that has infected liberals and college campuses under the guise of “correct speech.
We’ve seen this for several years now; in 2015, two Yale professors had to resign after encouraging adult students to stand up for the right to wear whatever Halloween costume he or she chose, even if it might offend another person; it was a response to a Yale policy trying to police Halloween costumes on campus. As Henninger pointed out in his article, “Numerous professors, including those at Yale’s top-rated law school, contacted [them] personally to say that it was too risky to speak their minds.” When even the faculty in higher education are afraid to speak their minds, we have a problem.
Even before that, in Spring 2013, a group of Swarthmore students outrageously violated the rights of the campus community. After being allowed to attend a board of trustees meeting to express their views, they then disrupted the meeting, preventing the duly elected Board from responding to their points and continuing the meeting. In their words, it was an effort “to smash ‘hegemonic power structures’ and silence other students”. Yet no action was taken against any of the students or faculty who participated in the abusive, illegal actions.
It is outrageous that the Middlebury incident occurred, but at this point, not entirely surprising anymore. What’s more, faculty and students at Middlebury participated in agitating the community before Charles Murray even arrived; they circulated a petition saying that Murray shouldn’t even be allowed to speak because his voice didn’t represent all people. In one sense, you can somewhat excuse the students who signed it, because they don’t always know better. But faculty? How can faculty at an institute of higher education believe and advocate that a different point of view is wrong in a college/university setting? What have we come to?
Middlebury can indeed serve as a turning point — but only if action is taken. These reckless participants need to be called out and reprimanded, or else such incidents will continue to occur.
