Here, Fake Media, is how you “pay” for tax cuts

As soon as President Trump announced a tax cutting plan to simplify the tax code, and that reduces tax rates and increases the personal exemption to $12,000 from $6,300 for individuals, the media, along with Democrats started singing a familiar tune. How will we “pay” for tax cuts they cried. Pay for tax cuts they say? Talk about a bogus question. History has shown that when tax rates are lowered, be it capital gains, or personal taxes that revenues increase. In other words the government gets more tax dollars because the economy benefits. Businesses, individuals, everyone benefits and revenues rise. The left, and the media, of course cannot seem to grasp something very simple. As with most things, the less government involvement the better.

This, of course does not fit the narrative that any decrease in tax rates will lead to great catastrophes and higher deficits. The rivers will be polluted, old folks will perish, the poor will starve and on and on. That revenues always rise after tax cuts escapes the left. Of course, there is another side to the coin here, one the media ignores. Spending needs to be cut too. Unnecessary programs, bloated government agencies, wasteful pork projects, etc. need to be cut if we are to truly reduce our national debt. In short, we need more of this

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has begun fulfilling President Donald Trump’s mission to reduce the size of government and save taxpayers a boatload of money by proposing to eliminate 2,300 jobs at the State Department.

If implemented, the plan would trim the State Department’s budget by more than a quarter and its staff by approximately 3 percent, according to The Associated Press.

The majority of the job cuts would be attained through attrition, or the process of waiting for employees to simply retire, while the remainder would be acquired via buyouts. As noted by The AP, buyouts would be offered first to employees over the age of 50 who have at least two decades of government service under their belts.

Ah, there is an idea, and the answer Democrats need to hear when they whine about “paying” for tax cuts. the answer? SPEND LESS!

The brilliance of our federal government

And by brilliance I mean, moronic central planners being moronic central planners

A generation ago, Detroit was the wealthiest city in the nation by per capita income. It is mostly dead now, killed by Model City moonbattery and demographic transformation. The shell of a city that remains is desperately impoverished. But at least its many sidewalks to nowhere are handicapped-accessible:

In a city where poverty is high, schools are broken and crime is rampant, the federal government has forced Detroit to spend more than $50 million in the past decade for sidewalk ramps that often lead to nowhere.

Many of the nearly 35,000 ramps, which are for people with disabilities, are on inaccessible sidewalks or streets with no homes.

City officials have fought the absurdities of the 2006 federal consent order, but to no avail. The federal government said the ramps were required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, even if the sidewalks were useless.

And this is the type of “progress” the Left wants more of

Another day, another Statist tax

The Left loves it some taxation. Taxes raises needed funds the Left can  buy votes with, and punishes behaviors the Left despises, and rewards certain behaviors the Left approves of. One of the more recent tax schemes the Statists have embraced is soda taxes, which punish you partakers of evil sugar. It should come as no surprise that San Francisco is actively trying to get in on that scam

Backers of a sugary drink tax say the issue will be on San Francisco’s November ballot, despite missing a key deadline by one day.

Campaign organizers had announced Thursday morning that they had collected nearly double the number of signatures required to qualify.

But elections director John Arntz, whose office verifies the signatures, said the campaign missed the deadline to submit those signatures.

The campaign called the mishap a “technical error,” and vowed to continue the fight against soda companies whose products they say contribute to obesity, diabetes and a host of other health ills.

Supervisors can place a measure on the ballot or soda tax supporters can also choose to circulate another petition and collect the 9,485 signatures needed by July 11.

Berkeley, California, became the first city in the country to approve a soda tax, in 2014. That year, a San Francisco campaign for a sugary drink tax failed at the ballot, as it did not get the two-thirds approval needed for a dedicated tax.

Oh but of course Bezerkley would have one of these draconian taxes wouldn’t they? So, how much extra would it cost those damned Individualists who dare continue drinking soda?

This year’s proposal for a general tax of one cent per ounce needs a simple majority to pass.

One cent, per ounce? So, that means a twelve pack of canned Coke would cost $1.44 more, a full case $2.88 more. Does not sound like a lot does it? But of course, the poor, you know the folks the Left claims to be fighting for, would be hardest hit. Typical! And what of fruit juices? I bought my niece some juice the other day. Welchs grape juice to be precise. It is, as you might expect good for you, but it has a LOT of sugar. When will that be hit with a tax? How about certain fruits that contain natural sugars? Cereals? How about them? Full of sugar, even Cheerios, or Rice Krispies, and my favorite cereal as a kid, Kellogs Raisin Bran? LOADS of sugar. Where does this venture into using taxes to punish behavior end?

Of course, silly me, I should have known, it IS for our own good!

“We’re not just going to sit back while our families suffer, while our parents suffer, while children get manipulated by the big soda industry and the community is destroyed,” said San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen earlier Thursday, surrounded by advocates.

Ah, of course BIG SODA! It is manipulating our kids, and making families suffer! And, oh yes, somehow it is also destroying our communities! Oh the horror, oh the humanity, oh spare me the Liberal BS.

Note how Ms. Cohen paints people as helpless victims that she and her fellow egalitarians will shield them from? Again spare me! As I mentioned I do a lot of shopping for my niece, and there are certain foods I will not buy her because of what they contain. She loves hot dogs, and I do buy them, but, I always get the ones with the lowest sodium content. She will not eat veggies, except green beans, and green peas. So, when I buy her juice boxes, I get those that contain fruit and vegetable juice. For snacks, I buy her the healthiest ones I can, raisins, cheese, granola bars, pickles, peanut butter, bananas, apples, peaches, pears, those yogurt squeeze things, or smoothies. 

The fact is, it is not difficult to find healthier alternatives for yourself, or for kids either. We do not need an over intrusive government to “help us” by punishing us. Face it the government cannot help us by restricting our choices or our liberties.

Hillary lets her Marxist side show

Dead patriots at Benghazi? Hillary cares not a bit. But redistributing wealth? She is all in on that

Hillary Clinton on Monday proposed a 4 percent tax on the wealthiest sliver of taxpayers who earn more than $5 million per year.

The so-called “surcharge” on the wealthiest 0.02 percent would generate $150 billion over the next decade, according to a Clinton campaign aide.

$150 Billion? Over ten years? Hell that would not pay for Pelosis’ Botox

The suggested tax follows Clinton’s promise last month as she campaigned alongside billionaire investor Warren Buffett to build on the “Buffett rule,” which would establish a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those earning more than $1 million per year. Buffett has criticized tax policies that allow the rich to pay lower rates than the middle class.

Why don’t people like Warren Buffet explain why anyone needs to pay 30% of their income to government? Especially given governments incredible record of waste, fraud, and corruption. Why not CUT needless spending Mr.  Buffet? Let those that earn the money keep as much as possible? Why not but out 99% of the exemptions too? Go to a flat or a consumption tax?

“I want to go further and impose what I call a fair share surcharge on multi-millionaires because right now, we’re behind and we need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay for their fair share, so I can keep my promise, which is I will not raise taxes on the middle class,” Clinton said at a campaign stop in Iowa on Monday.

Miss Hillary, if the U.S. Treasury is “behind” blame Congress for, say it with me, spending too fucking much!

*VIDEOS* Prager University: Curriculum – Left Vs. Right


HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE?

.
DOES IT FEEL GOOD OR DOES IT DO GOOD?

.
HOW DO YOU JUDGE AMERICA?

.
HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH PAINFUL TRUTHS?

.
HOW DO YOU MAKE SOCIETY BETTER?

.

.

*VIDEO* Fox Business GOP Presidential Primary Debate (11/10/15)

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* Fox Business Republican Presidential Primary Debate (11/10/15 – 9pm ET)



…………………………Click on image above for live stream.

Stream 2
Stream 3
Stream 4
Stream 5

Participants: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Donald Trump, John Kasich, Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina

NOTE: Kiddie table debate begins at 7pm and includes the following candidates: Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal

.

.

*VIDEO* Ben Carson: Colorado Christian University

.

.

*VIDEO* Ben Carson Discusses The GOP Presidential Primary Race On Bloomberg Television

.
Click HERE to purchase Dr. Carson’s book ‘A More Perfect Union: What We The People Can Do To Reclaim Our Constitutional Liberties’.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz: Iowa Town Hall

.

.

Obamanomics Update: Feds Take In Record $3,248,723,000,000 In Tax Revenues; Still Run $438,899,000,000 Deficit

$3,248,723,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record In FY 2015; $21,833 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $438.9B Deficit – CNS

The federal government took in a record of approximately $3,248,723,000,000 in taxes in fiscal 2015 (which ended on Sept. 30), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

That equaled approximately $21,833 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in September.

It is also up about $212,927,100,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $3,035,795,900,000 in revenue (in 2015 dollars) that the Treasury raked in during fiscal 2014.

.

.
Even as the Treasury was hauling in a record $3,248,723,000,000 in tax revenues in fiscal 2015, the federal government was spending $3,687,622,000,000. So, the federal government ran a deficit of $438,899,000,000 for the fiscal year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in September (including both full and part-time workers) was 148,800,000. That means that the federal tax haul for fiscal 2015 equaled about $21,832.82 for every person in the United States with a job.

In 2012, President Barack Obama struck a deal with Republicans in Congress to enact legislation that increased taxes. That included increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, increasing the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions starting at an annual income level of $250,000.

An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interest, capital gains and royalties – that was embedded in the Obamacare law – also took effect in 2013.

The largest share of fiscal 2015’s record-setting tax haul came from the individual income tax. That yielded the Treasury $1,540,802,000,000. Payroll taxes for “social insurance and retirement receipts” took in another $1,065,277,000,000. The corporate income tax brought in $343,797,000,000.

.

.

The Donald Reveals His Tax Plan (Video)

Trump Plan Cuts Taxes For Millions – Wall Street Journal

.

.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump unveiled an ambitious tax plan Monday that he says would eliminate income taxes for millions of households, lower the tax rate on all businesses to 15% and change tax treatment of companies’ overseas earnings.

Under the Trump plan, no federal income tax would be levied against individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. The Trump campaign estimates that would reduce taxes to zero for 31 million households that currently pay at least some income tax. The highest individual income-tax rate would be 25%, compared with the current 39.6% rate.

Many middle-income households would have a lower tax rate under Mr. Trump’s proposal, but because high-income households generally pay income tax at much higher rates, his proposed across-the-board rate cut could have a positive impact on them, too. For example, an analysis of Jeb Bush’s plan – taxing individuals’ incomes at no more than 28% – by the business-backed Tax Foundation found that the biggest percentage winners in after-tax income would be the top 1% of earners.

Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist – though that message is complicated by the fact that the billionaire, like other Republican leaders, would eliminate the estate tax.

“My plan will bring sanity, common sense and simplification to our country’s catastrophic tax code,” Mr. Trump said in an interview. “It will create jobs and incentives of all kinds while simultaneously growing the economy.”

But Mr. Trump will face a challenge in convincing skeptics that his aggressive tax cuts can be implemented without adding to the federal deficit.

To pay for the proposed tax benefits, the Trump plan would eliminate or reduce deductions and loopholes to high-income taxpayers, and would curb some deductions and other breaks for middle-class taxpayers by capping the level of individual deductions, a politically dicey proposition. Mr. Trump also would end the “carried interest” tax break, which allows many investment-fund managers to pay lower taxes on much of their compensation.

A significant revenue gain would come from a one-time tax on overseas profits that could encourage U.S. multinational corporations to return an estimated $2.1 trillion in cash now sitting offshore, largely to avoid U.S. taxes. His proposal would impose a mandatory 10% tax on all of that money, even if the money stays overseas, but allow a few years for the tax to be paid. The Trump campaign estimates that many companies would choose to bring their money back home, boosting jobs and investment in the U.S.

Mr. Trump also would impose an immediate tax on overseas earnings of American corporations; currently, such tax payments can be deferred. All told, the campaign says the plan would be revenue neutral – neither raising nor lowering federal revenues – by the third year and then begin adding revenue.

With the tax plan’s release, Mr. Trump is moving to quell criticism that his campaign has been more style and less substance. This tax proposal follows his well-known immigration plan in the summer and one on gun rights last week.

Mr. Trump saves some money and fiscal headaches by skipping some of the big but complicated and costly changes that other candidates have embraced, such as business-expensing breaks and so-called territorial taxation for multinational corporations.

On the individual side, Mr. Trump would consolidate the current seven rates to four, of 0%, 10%, 20% and 25%. Those changes alone would exempt all married couples making $50,000 or less from the income tax, as well as singles making $25,000 or less.

The 10% bracket would apply to incomes from $50,000 to $100,000 for a married couple; the current 10% bracket has a ceiling of $18,450. The new 25% top bracket would apply to married couples’ incomes in excess of $300,000, which currently are subject to rates as high as 39.6%. Mr. Trump also would cut the top capital gains rate to 20%, from the current 23.8%. And he would eliminate the alternative minimum tax.

But the candidate doesn’t propose to end taxation of individuals’ investment income, as some other Republicans propose, nor would he expand the standard deduction, child-credit and other middle-class breaks as some other GOP candidates have suggested.

For businesses, Mr. Trump’s 15% rate is among the lowest that have been proposed so far. Rand Paul has proposed a 14.5% flat-tax rate for all types of income. Marco Rubio, another candidate with a detailed plan, would tax all business income at no more than 25%. Mr. Bush has proposed a 20% top corporate rate. The current top corporate tax rate is 35%, and small business income is subject to rates of as much as 39.6% (although many small businesses pay out a lot of their profits as lower-taxed dividends or capital gains). The campaign argues the rate would be among the lowest among industrialized nations, giving U.S. companies an edge to compete.

The lower corporate rates would provide “a tremendous stimulus for the economy,” the campaign’s plan argues. Mr. Trump would not, however, allow businesses to expense all their new equipment purchases, as some other Republicans do.

The plan proposes to simplify tax filing for many lower- to middle-income households. The plan says that some 42 million households that currently file tax forms to establish that they don’t owe any federal income tax now will be able to file their returns on a single page.

The 31 million households that have been paying some taxes but now won’t have any tax liability can use the same single-page, and keep an average of $1,000 in tax savings, the Trump campaign says. Today, 36% of American households today pay no income taxes, and that number would grow to 50%.

The Trump plan would raise revenues in at least a couple of significant ways. It would limit the value of individual deductions, with middle-class households keeping all or most of their deductions, higher-income taxpayers keeping around half of theirs, and the very wealthy losing a significant chunk of theirs. It also would wipe out many corporate deductions.

All taxpayers would keep their current deductions for mortgage-interest on their homes and charitable giving.

The plan also proposes capping the amount of interest payments that businesses can deduct now, a change phased in over a long period, and would impose a corporate tax on future foreign earnings of American multinationals.
.

.
Click HERE to view the entire Trump tax plan.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ben Carson Speech And Q&A At Steamboat Institute Freedom Conference (08/28/15)

.

.

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Fed-Up Taxpayers Flee Democrat-Run States For Republican Ones

Taxpayers Fleeing Democrat-Run States For Republican Ones – Americans For Tax Reform

.

.
In 2013, more than 200,000 people on net fled states with Democrat governors for ones run by Republicans, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by Americans for Tax Reform.

“People move away from high tax states to low tax states. Every tax refugee is sending a powerful message to politicians,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “They are voting with their feet. Leaders in Texas and Florida are listening. New York and California are not.”

That year, Democrat-run states lost a net 226,763 taxpayers, bringing with them nearly $15.7 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI). That same year, states with Republican governors gained nearly 220,000 new taxpayers, who brought more than $14.1 billion in AGI with them.

Only one-third of states with Democrat governors gained taxpayers, compared to three-fifths of states with Republican governors.

Top 5 loser states for Democrat governors in 2013:

· New York (114,929 people with $5.7 billion in AGI)

· Illinois (68,943 people with $3.8 billion in AGI)

· California (47,458 people with 3.8 billion in AGI)

· Connecticut (14,453 people with $1.8 billion in AGI)

· Massachusetts (11,915 people with $1 billion in AGI)

Top 5 winner states for Republican governors in 2013:

· Texas (152,912 people with $6 billion in AGI)

· Florida (74,094 people with 8.3 billion in AGI)

· South Carolina (29,176 people with 1.6 billion in AGI)

· North Carolina (26,207 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)

· Arizona (16,549 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)

The single largest net migration from one state to another took place between New York and Florida (17,355 people).

.

.

Leftist Corruption Update: Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose White House Requests For Taxpayer Information

Federal Judge Orders IRS To Disclose WH Requests For Taxpayer Info – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
A federal judge on Friday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to reveal White House requests for taxpayers’ private information, advancing a probe into whether administration officials targeted political opponents by revealing such information.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the IRS’s argument that a law designed to protect the confidentiality of such information protected the public disclosure of such communications with the White House.

The law, 26 U.S. Code § 6103, was passed after the Watergate scandal to protect citizens from retribution by federal officials. Jackson scoffed at the administration’s claims that the statute could be used to shield investigations into whether private tax information had been used in such a manner.

“The Court is unwilling to stretch the statute so far, and it cannot conclude that section 6103 may be used to shield the very misconduct it was enacted to prohibit,” Jackson wrote in her order.

The decision was a victory for Cause of Action, the legal watchdog group that sued the IRS in 2013 seeking records of its communications with the White House and potential disclosure of confidential taxpayer information.

The group called the decision “a significant victory for transparency advocates” in a Friday statement

“As we have said all along, this administration cannot misinterpret the law in order to potentially hide evidence of wrongdoing,” said Dan Epstein, the group’s executive director. “No administration is above the law, and we are pleased that the court has sided with us on this important point.”

The lawsuit came after Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, the IRS’s official watchdog agency, revealed that it was investigating whether Austan Goolsbee, the White House’s former chief economist, illegally accessed or revealed confidential tax information related to Koch Industries.

The corporation’s owners, Charles and David Koch, are prominent funders of conservative and libertarian groups that often oppose the White House’s policy priorities.

Goolsbee “used Koch Industries as an example when discussing an issue noted in the [President’s Economic Recovery Board] report that half of business income goes to companies that do not pay corporate income tax because they are pass-through entities and that many of them are quite large,” the White House said in 2010.

His apparent knowledge of Koch’s tax history, detailed during a conference call with reporters, “implies direct knowledge of Koch’s legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation” of federal law, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the time.

.

.

*VIDEO* Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing On The IRS Targeting Of Conservative Groups (07/29/15)


Subcommittee On Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights And Federal Courts
Chairman: Ted Cruz
Witnesses: John Koskinen, Cleta Mitchell, Stephen Spaulding, Edward D. Greim, Lawrence Noble, Toby Marie Walker, Diana Aviv, Jenny Beth Martin, Gregory L. Colvin, Jay Sekulow

.

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.
………………— Note: hearing begins at about the 18:45 mark —

.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

.

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: The Republican Leadership In Congress Is Ruining The Party And The Country


.

.

Hitlery To Propose Doubling Capital Gains Tax On Short-Term Investments

Clinton Would Double Capital Gains Tax On Short-Term Investments – OANN

.

.
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.

.

.

Leftist Nightmare Update: IRS Might Not Refund $38M In Overpaid ObamaCare Fines

IRS Might Not Refund $38M Overpaid ObamaCare Fines – Sweetness & Light

.

.
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.’

.

.