Why public sector job costs (your taxes) are so high:
Category: Taxes
We’re not far behind…
A triumphant story:
Iranian female Olympian defects, calls out regime’s ‘hypocrisy’ as she exits country permanently
Iran reacted poorly, with a rather absurd statement reminiscent of East Germany while the Berlin Wall existed (per this news outlet):
Iranian MP Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, meanwhile, demanded answers, accusing those he described as the “incompetent officials” of allowing Iran’s “human capital to flee” the country.
The key phrase here is “human capital to flee”. To the Iranian government, the people are simply slaves needed to carry out their vision of Iran. Unfortunately, some of the people don’t agree with that vision – but if Iran’s leadership had their way (and they usually do) then these people would not be allowed to leave. Fortunately, Kimia Alizadeh managed to escape. You go girl!
However, it may soon be that it is the U.S. government making it difficult for “human capital to flee”. It’s how they’ll keep the productive population needed to support the socialist utopia that far-left politicians hope to create.
This has essentially already begun: The U.S. currently has an “expatriation tax” that applies to those who leave. This rule assumes that all property held by a citizen is sold at market value on the day the citizen renounces their citizenship, with net gains subject to income tax. But it might get worse – Elizabeth Warren is proposing an exit tax that would take 40% of an individual’s net worth. Given how much she seems to hate rich people, one would assume she’d rather they leave – but then who would pay for her programs?
I wonder what would happen if instead the rich simply defected, as did Kimia, requesting political asylum in another country. Would the U.S. still be able to tax them then? Curious…
Bernie’s got it wrong (again)
Bernie Sanders is proposing a new tax for corporations that pay their leaders in excess of what he considers equitable. According to Bernie:
Bernie is wrong to propose a tax for this purpose. Government coercion or demand via excessive taxation is not the way to handle situations that arise in a free market economy. The truth is, we have always had the ability to curb corporate pay – without the government’s help. Remember: in our society the power remains with the people.
If the people want to lower the amount paid to the giants of industry, all they have to do is to stop buying their products. It is the willingness of individuals to buy their products that fuels the high pay of company executives. If the people continue to purchase the products of such companies, even in light of their pay practices, it is an example of free enterprise and should be of no concern to the government. It’s simply none of the government’s business what a corporation pays its employees.
Bernie’s new tax, coupled with other taxes proposed by he and Elizabeth Warren, are destroying the engine of American innovation by corrupting the reward system that drives it. Don’t be surprised if such efforts result in America losing its longtime status as an innovation center.
It’s absurd…
…to believe that businesses pay these special taxes, re: San Francisco’s “Proposition C: San Francisco Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services Initiative” from the 2018 election.
What if I instead told you that the city was going to take 3% of your wages for this new tax (and others); would you still vote for it then? When such taxes are levied against payroll it is money that really comes out of your future wages; the company and it’s stockholders won’t pay a dime. The total San Francisco payroll tax for large companies in is now approaching 3%. Would you rather have your employer pay this 3% to you, or the bloated government in the city where you work?
Worse, this homeless tax has skirted the intent of laws passed by voters in the wake of Proposition 13 that required special taxes imposed by government entities be approved by 2/3 of the voters. This was accomplished by placing the tax on the ballot as a voter initiative rather than a government-proposed tax.
A recent California Supreme Court decision found that voter initiatives were exempt from the restrictions of Article 13 C section 2 (d) of the California constitution, which is what requires a 2/3 voter approval for special taxes levied by local governments:
(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.
Frankly, I find this ruling in error (but I’m not a lawyer, so who cares about my opinion). I say this because even if a tax is proposed by a voter initiative (as opposed to being proposed by a government entity), such a tax can only be imposed (levied or enforced) by the local government after approval. Thus, the 2/3 voter approval should stand for taxes based on voter initiatives. Also, without this 2/3 rule being applied to voter initiatives, local politicians will simply employ activists/community organizers (possibly using public funds!) in the initiative process to circumvent the California constitution with respect to tax hikes.
Let’s hope the California Supreme Court comes to it’s senses and corrects this erroneous ruling.
California math
The California legislature has passed a budget that includes health care funding for illegal aliens, all the while claiming to have a budget “surplus” (they have a whole $19B in their rainy day fund). However, the truth is a bit different. According to this article in the Sacramento Bee, the state’s unfunded pension liabilities are at least $450B, and likely closer to $1T – that’s a far cry from what they have in their rainy day fund.
It’s no wonder socialist dogma is so popular in California – their voters simply can’t recognize that the math does not work.
Another “sin” tax?
According to NPR, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others are calling for “sugary drink” taxes as a way to reduce sugar consumption by youths. They cite data showing that sugary drinks are the cause of some health problems as justification for such taxes.
The efforts outlined in the NPR article suggest that lawmakers take action absent voter approval. Why not put it to the voters, along with an education campaign? Interestingly, if the voters approve then why can’t they make the choice themselves to simply avoid sugary drinks without a law, without another tax? Alternatively, if the goal is reduced consumption then why not make such drinks illegal? Wouldn’t that be more effective? Or is the true purpose a tax revenue stream, paid for by those who can least afford it?
The Declaration of Independence proclaims our right to the pursuit of happiness; it does not define the government (or anyone else) as its arbiter. The government should stay out of our personal decisions – including what we decide to consume.
“Holy cow, Batman!”
In 2017, U.S. Government spending accounted for 38% of GDP. Really.
Talk about “big government”…
Walls to keep people in
The Berlin Wall was built by the East German government to prevent the flight of people and their wealth. This desire to flee was the result of the socialist policies of the German Democratic Republic (why do these despotic governments always claim in their names to be democracies?).
Senator Warren also wants to build a wall to prevent the flight of people and their wealth – this time in the United States. She expects that “rich” people will want to leave due to her proposal to tax their wealth to fund her vote-buying socialist programs. This wall, however, is not physical; instead, it is financial. If wealthy people want to leave the U.S. to avoid the high wealth tax she proposes, then she will take 40% of their wealth on the way out the door. That is a substantial bar to freedom, no less so than a concrete wall.
There is little difference between the actions of the former East Germany and those of Senator Warren, and both have been perpetrated on the public in the name of socialism. If we allow Warren’s proposal to go forward, it won’t be long before walls are built on the border to keep Americans in – rather than illegal aliens out.
Fair share?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to impose a 70% marginal tax rate on high-earners. Her argument: these people “…have to start paying their fair share in taxes.” Really, Alexandria? I think if anyone should start paying their fair share, it’s the socialists who expect everything to be free.
The truth is actually the other way around: the top 1% of earners in the United States paid 35.7% of all income taxes in 2016; less than 5% of tax returns paid more than 57% of all taxes; barely 17% of tax returns paid 80% of all taxes. Out of more than 150 million tax returns for 2016, 50 million paid no taxes at all. Sounds instead like the “rich” are paying far more than their share, Alexandria.
Expanded criteria proposed for defining “public charges”
At present, potential immigrants to the United States are deemed a “public charge” if they depend on cash assistance programs or long-term health care funded by the federal government. The designation as a public charge is grounds for refusal of a green card or admission to the United States. From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services web site:
“For purposes of determining inadmissibility, “public charge” means an individual who is likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”
The current administration has proposed expanding this rule to include Medicaid, food stamps and housing subsidies. Such rules and their expansion to consider contemporary means of government-funded support are necessary to insure the viability of the country. No social system can survive by allowing itself to be overrun by those who produce less than they consume and depend on the public for support.
A recent NPR article brought to light this rule change and sought to garner public support against it by consulting with various medical industry and community groups. However, these groups are self-serving in their responses given that many provide medical care funded by government programs, or direct beneficiaries of such programs to member service providers. I would expect these groups – who have businesses dependent or built upon these welfare benefits – to be strongly against any rule changes that could affect their financial viability.
But what about the American public, who have to fund these “public charges”? I imagine that some Americans – for instance, those who themselves benefit from public assistance programs – would support the expansion and maintenance of such programs, even if to do so would add an immigrant population to the roles. Alternatively, those who pay little or no taxes, or have such high incomes that they simply are not affected by the tax impact of these programs, will have little reason to oppose such government-funded “humanitarian aid”. However, those in the middle class – who understand that there is no such thing as “government money” and who’s taxes would fund such a system – might agree with this administration’s efforts to oppose immigrants who would make a net negative contribution to our economy.
This does not mean that immigrants who might need some initial assistance should be refused if they can demonstrate that they have the ability to assimilate into the productive workforce. However, we should adamantly oppose their being granted permanent residence (green card) status until such time that they accomplish this feat, and there should be a strict timeline for compliance.
Alternatively, those who wish to support additional immigrants who do not meet these conditions should be allowed to sponsor them financially, independent of the government welfare system. In this way charitable organizations, funded by like-minded individuals, can risk their own funds rather than those of the general tax payer who might not agree with their criteria.