Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will propose nearly doubling the U.S. capital gains tax rate on short-term investments to 39.6 percent, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
A Clinton campaign official said the Clinton rate plan would affect investments held between one and two years, which are currently taxed at a 20 percent capital gains rate, the newspaper reported.
Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, will outline her plan in a speech Friday in New York. She will argue that corporate efforts to boost stock prices in the short term undercuts longer-term economic growth and hurts American workers, the newspaper said.
Top-bracket single earners with taxable income higher than $413,201 and married couples filing jointly with income above $484,850 would be affected, the newspaper reported.
The campaign official, who was not identified, said the plan would not change the capital gains rate for lower-income taxpayers, the journal said.
The plan would not count an extra 3.8 percent tax on net investment income included as part of the federal healthcare law, it said.
As the push continues in various locations around the country to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, the real world consequences of such a move have begun to surface.
Seattle became the first city in the nation to implement the $15 per hour minimum wage this past spring. Fox News reports that one unintended effect is that workers who are earning the higher wage are asking for fewer hours, so they can remain eligible for low income government benefits like childcare and tax credits.
Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less.
Local radio talk show host Jason Rantz on KIRO-FM noted the irony: “If [employees] cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people.”
“Despite a booming economy throughout western Washington, the state’s welfare caseload has dropped very little since the higher wage phase began in Seattle in April. In March 130,851 people were enrolled in the Basic Food program. In April, the caseload dropped to 130,376,” according to Fox News.
As reported by Western Journalism, private businesses, unlike government entities (which, in theory, can always raise taxes or borrow), must make more than they spend in order to pay the rent, make payroll, keep the lights on, pay their business taxes, and, heaven forbid, have some left over for the owners and investors who are taking the risk and putting in the long hours.
“Some restaurants have tacked on a 15 percent surcharge to cover the higher wages. And some managers are no longer encouraging customers to tip, leading to a redistribution of income. Workers in the back of the kitchen, such as dishwashers and cooks, are getting paid more, but servers who rely on tips are seeing a pay cut,” Fox News reported.
Earlier this year, as the implementation of the minimum wage law loomed, Seattle Magazine noted that something appeared to be afoot affecting the restaurant industry in the city, asking: “Why Are So Many Seattle Restaurants Closing Lately? “Seattle foodies [are] downcast,” the magazine reported, “as the blows kept coming: Queen Anne’s Grub closed February 15. Pioneer Square’s Little Uncle shut down February 25. Shanik’s Meeru Dhalwala announced that it will close March 21. Renée Erickson’s Boat Street Café will shutter May 30 after 17 years with her at the helm… What the #*%&$* is going on? A variety of things, probably – and a good chance there is more change to come.”
The magazine went on to report that one “major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike.” Anthony Anton, president and CEO of the Washington Restaurant Association, told the magazine: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.” He estimates that restaurants usually have a budget breakdown of about 36 percent for labor, 30 percent for food costs, and 30 percent to cover other operational costs. That leaves 4 percent for a profit margin. When labor costs shoot up to, say 42 percent, something has to give.
Shah Burnham is just one Seattle restaurant owner who believes that keeping her doors open is no longer worth it. She owns a popular Z Pizza restaurant location and says that even though her one store only has 12 employees, she’s considered part of the Z Pizza franchise – a large business. So she has to give raises within the next two years. “Small businesses in the city have up to six more years to phase in the new $15 an hour minimum wage,” according to Seattle’s Fox News 13.
“I know that I would have stayed here if I had 7 years, just like everyone else, if I had an even playing field,” she says. “The discrimination I’m feeling right now against my small business makes me not want to stay and do anything in Seattle.”
“It’s what happens when the government imposes a restriction on the labor market that normally wouldn’t be there” …usually the “small, neighborhood businesses” get hit the hardest, said Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center.
San Francisco and Los Angeles have already embraced the $15 per hour benchmark being pushed by some Democrat politicians and labor unions, while New York regulators announced their recommendation to the state’s governor this week to raise the rate for fast food workers to the same level.
The Heritage Foundation notes the minimum wage is usually for new workers, with a low percentage of Americans receiving it. The organization notes some other interesting statistics:
* Over half of minimum-wage earners are between the ages of 16 and 24.
* Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers earn raises within a year – without the government’s help.
* Only 2.9 percent of wage earners earn the federal minimum wage.
* Most minimum-wage earners are teenagers or young adults, not heads of families.
* Two-thirds work part time (defined as less than 35 hours a week).
* Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers live in families with incomes above 150 percent of the poverty line.
* Just 4 percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full time, compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers.
* Studies find raising the minimum wage does not reduce poverty.
Heritage recommends that if government leaders want to reduce poverty, they should focus on growing the economy through better tax policies and restructuring the welfare state to remove the current disincentives to work more hours, or work at all.
Early indicators suggest that the $15 minimum wage is a lose, lose proposition for employers and employees.
Everybody knows if you don’t pay to repair your car, you limit its life.
The same is true with people. We need medical care to avoid becoming clunkers.
For a half-century, Medicare has enabled seniors to get that care. But now the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals to skimp.
Last week, the administration announced the largest-ever change in how Medicare pays for care. It’s called “bundled payments,” and it’s the latest trick to squeeze care from seniors.
Bundling will make it financially risky for hospitals in New York and many other areas of the country to do hip and knee replacements. These two procedures have transformed the experience of aging, allowing seniors to stay active.
But President Obama says too many seniors are getting these operations.
When the subject of hip replacements came up in a 2009 town-hall meeting, he said “maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the pain killer.”
Science proves the president is wrong. Seniors with severe arthritis who opt for a knee replacement are 50 percent more likely to still be alive seven years later than seniors who don’t. Pain and immobility are killers.
Medicare is moving from paying doctors and hospitals for each item and service they provide to the new bundling system in January 2016.
It’s being rolled out in New York City, Newark, Buffalo, New Haven and New London, Conn., and many other regions, including Los Angeles. About 100,000 seniors will feel the pain, one quarter of the number expected to get hip and knee replacements each year.
Hospitals in these areas will have to settle for a flat fee for all the care a knee- or hip-replacement patient might need – including surgery, pain killers, hospital stays, rehabilitation and home care – regardless of how things go.
If there are complications, the hospital and doctors lose out. Hospitals will have to cut corners, and avoid the costliest patients altogether. So if you’ve been considering getting a hip or knee replacement, do it before January.
Ezekiel Emanuel, the president’s health-care adviser, applauds the impending change, promising that “savings are immediate and guaranteed.” What savings? Not for you.
Bundled payments will force cuts in care, not necessarily “savings.” The new system will set up a conflict of interest between patients and the very people they need to trust.
Whatever the patient gets will come off the hospital’s bottom line and out of the doctors’ own pockets at the end of the year.
Seniors are guinea pigs in this new scheme. The RAND Corp. says there are no studies to show the impact on patients.
Isn’t that what health care is supposed to be about? RAND says the scheme risks putting “pressure on physicians to spend less time with patients or on hospitals to decrease amenities.”
Health-care analysts at Lewin Group predict hospitals will scrimp by sending patients directly home with only a part-time health aide instead of to full-time rehabilitation at a skilled nursing facility.
Another risk is that hospitals will use low-cost implants instead of allowing surgeons to opt for newer prostheses that give patients more range of movement.
Bundling payments is one of several ploys to shortchange seniors. In October 2012, Medicare began awarding bonus points to the hospitals that spend the least per senior, despite evidence that spending less results in higher death rates.
Americans know Medicare is running out of money.
But it’s better to have an honest conversation about how to extend its solvency, including raising the eligibility age and enlisting competition among private insurers, than to have the hidden incentives to cut care the Obama administration is using.
Rationing is invisible. Patients won’t know about the care they should have gotten or how much less they could have suffered.
Bundled payments, like other perverse incentives buried in ObamaCare, destroy Medicare as we’ve known it.
In 2008, construction was completed on the 757-room Baltimore Hilton, a $305 million publicly-funded hotel spearheaded by Baltimore’s mayor at the time, Martin O’Malley. The hotel, in seven years of operation, has never turned a profit. The best year of operation saw a $2.9 million loss.
“It’s the biggest boondoggle ever. It’s hemorrhaging money every year and has less-than-stellar performance,” Democratic Maryland state Sen. James Brochin told The Daily Caller.
Originally intended to draw revenue from a supposed untapped convention market in Baltimore, the Hilton Hotel project slowly began losing money when conventions passed on Baltimore for other locations such as Austin, Texas and nearby Washington, D.C.
In July 2005, more than three years after the plan was finalized, it was still facing opposition in the city council. Of the 15 council members, only three said they believed the hotel would actually help the city.
“In my district, I can’t get funding to fix vacant houses,” Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke told The Baltimore Sun in 2005. “I’m worried about the financing and the kind of precedent this is setting.”
After O’Malley pushed the hotel vote to pass with the council, The Sun reported that this, the “costliest public project in Baltimore history” may see the fate of other cities’ failed publicly funded hotel ventures, such as St. Louis, Omaha, and Overland Park, Kan., “all cities that used public money to build hotels. Failing hotels.”
“The government shouldn’t be in the business of owning businesses. It was a catastrophic economical mistake by O’Malley, and the whole thing is ridiculous,” said Brochin.
O’Malley’s hotel, which he claimed in 2005 to be “risk-free,” is now entering its seventh year of public losses, the Sun reported earlier this year.
Even in times of great profit for the city, the hotel has weighed it down. In 2014, 2.4 million fans were drawn to Camden Yards when the Orioles took home the AL East pennant and, even though the hotel is situated directly adjacent to the stadium, it reported losses of $5.6 million.
Jan Freitag, a vice president with the Tennessee-based firm Smith Travel Research, told the Sun 2014 was a banner year for hotels across the country, including Baltimore, which saw a 7.9 percent growth in hotel revenue. Yet the Hilton’s losses persisted.
In a 2008 sports column in The Washington Post, Thomas Boswell used the Hilton Hotel’s burgeoning construction to illustrate the sadness of the Orioles as a whole. He described the sadness of their opening day loss as “begin[ning] their season as expected – in the utter misery of a complete rebuilding program,” referring to the ball club and the city of Baltimore.
Boswell continues: “The Hilton Convention Center Hotel next door, when finished, may merely be ugly. However, in its current state, with huge random splotches of yellow, white and blue, it’s like a cruel cubist joke. Forever, it will dominate the horizon and block views of the… adored Bromo Seltzer Tower… lording [its] eyesore [self] over previously perfect Camden Yards.”
A request for comment to the O’Malley campaign went unreturned.
Fines? What fines? Those are ‘shared responsibility payments.’
From the Washington Free Beacon:
300,000 Taxpayers Overpaid Obamacare Fine by $38 Million, IRS May Not Return Money
By Morgan Chalfant | July 15, 2015
Approximately 6.6 million U.S. taxpayers paid a penalty for not having health insurance imposed this year under Obamacare, and hundreds of thousands of them overpaid the fine.
Bloomberg reported Wednesday that the number of taxpayers paying the fine, which was put in place to encourage Americans to enroll in health coverage, exceeded the Obama administration’s initial estimate by 10 percent.
Funny how all of the ‘bad stuff’ about Obama-Care was underestimated. What are the odds?
According to a new report from the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the average fine paid by taxpayers was $190. The penalty, however, can reach up to 1 percent of one’s income.
The report also discovered that about 300,000 taxpayers, most of whom should have been deemed exempt because of low income, overpaid the fine by $35 million. The average amount overpaid by each individual was $110.
So Obama-Care even fined the poor. What a surprise.
The IRS has yet to decide whether or not it will return the funds to those who overpaid…
According to the report, approximately 10.7 million U.S. taxpayers filed for exemption from the penalty…
And never mind that most of these people getting exemptions are the very people Obama-Care was supposed to get to pay their ‘shared responsibility.’
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has now spent over $3.5 million of taxpayer’s money to try and determine why the majority of lesbians in the US are obese.
The study entitled, ‘Sexual Orientation and Obesity: A Test of a Gendered Biopsychosocial Model,’ is aimed at concluding why nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians are dangerously overweight.
The study is also investigating why heterosexual men are twice as likely to be obese when compared to gay males.
Fat disparity: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has now spent over $3.5 million of taxpayer’s dollars in an effort to determine why the majority of lesbians in the U.S. are obese
‘It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women. In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males,’ says the study.
The NIH has cited public health and the risks associated with obesity in their continued funding of the project.
The study first began in 2011 and it will continue until June of next year.
Free Beacon reports that the total funding for the research is now $3,531,925. Funding has more than doubled since the study was first reported on by CNSNews.com in 2013.
A scientific paper associated with the study asserted that lesbians have lower ‘athletic-self esteem’ that could be linked to higher rates of obesity.
A separate research paper found that lesbians are more likely to see themselves as a healthy weight even if they are not.
Athletic confidence: A scientific paper associated with the study asserted that lesbians have lower ‘athletic-self esteem’ that could be linked to higher rates of obesity and that they exercised fewer hours when compared to their heterosexual female peers
A study published last month by the project’s lead investigator, S. Bryn Austin, concluded that young gay and bisexual men were more concerned with being lean than their heterosexual male counterparts . The study found that both heterosexual and homosexual males were concerned with their muscles at a young age.
‘Latent transition analyses revealed that sexual minority males (i.e., mostly heterosexual, gay, and bisexual) were more likely than completely heterosexual males to be lean-concerned at ages 17-18 and 19-20 years and to transition to the lean-concerned class from the healthy class,’ said the scientific paper.
‘There were no sexual orientation differences in odds of being muscle-concerned.’
The study also investigated body issues among young men and suggested that they should be screened to ensure they didn’t have too much of a preoccupation with their biceps.