taxes

Oprah Promises Cable Show “Smaller & Different”; Wants Biz In LA Not Chicago; “Why Would Anybody Stay? It’s Freezing Here, And I Have A Mansion In Montecito That I Haven’t Been Able To Enjoy” – Deadline.com

Tickler Leave a comment

Yet another filthy rich liberal who favors high taxes, while trying to avoid paying her own. Can anyone tell me why any Democrat wins an election other than hand-outs and payback.. oh, yeah, and ACORNs ubiquitous fraud?

That show won’t be based in Chicago: it will move to Los Angeles where the OWN headquarters is based, according to my sources who also say she wants to divest her real estate in Chicago “as soon as possible”. [5 AM UPDATE: I’m receiving no definitive word on what happens to her Chicago-based company Harpo.] She explained to insiders, “Why would anybody stay in Chicago? It’s freezing here, and I have a mansion in Montecito that I haven’t been able to enjoy.”

Another reason she hasn’t is taxes. My sources say Oprah and her people have long limited the time she spends in Montecito so she doesn’t exceed the number of days mandating her to pay exorbitant taxes as a California resident.

read the rest here… Oprah Promises Cable Show “Smaller & Different”; Wants Biz In LA Not Chicago; “Why Would Anybody Stay? It’s Freezing Here, And I Have A Mansion In Montecito That I Haven’t Been Able To Enjoy” – Deadline.com.

A Reckless Congress – WSJ.com

Tickler Leave a comment

Mr. Obama’s February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren’t nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.

via A Reckless Congress – WSJ.com.

DEM HEALTH RX A POI$ON PILL IN NY – New York Post

Tickler Leave a comment

Congressional plans to fund a massive health-care overhaul could have a job-killing effect on New York, creating a tax rate of nearly 60 percent for the state’s top earners and possibly pressuring small-business owners to shed workers.

via DEM HEALTH RX A POI$ON PILL IN NY – New York Post.

Democrats want to impose “surtax” to finance health care – WSJ.com

Tickler Leave a comment

A new study by the Kaufman Foundation finds that small business entrepreneurs have led America out of its last seven post-World War II recessions. They also generate about two of every three new jobs during a recovery. The more the Obama Democrats reveal of their policies, the more it’s clear that they prize income redistribution above all else, including job creation and economic growth.

via Democrats want to impose “surtax” to finance health care – WSJ.com.

Americans’ Tax Burden Near Historic Low – washingtonpost.com

Tickler Leave a comment

Overlooked was one big drawback for the nation’s finances: More people are likely to pay no income taxes at all.

According to the most recent IRS statistics, about 45 million households — a third of all filers — owed no federal income tax after taking their credits and deductions in 2006. This year, with the profusion of new credits in the stimulus package, about 65 million households — or 43 percent of all filers — are likely to owe no income taxes, according to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

via Americans’ Tax Burden Near Historic Low – washingtonpost.com.

PETER FERRARA: Obama Is So Clueless About Federal Taxes « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com

Tickler Leave a comment

Before Obama became president, the top 1% of income earners already paid 40% of the total federal income taxes. The top 5% of the population the president is targeting for tax hikes already paid 60% of federal income taxes.

By contrast, the bottom 40% of income earners, who lefties like Obama often refer to as “working people” or the “working class,” as a group already paid no income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the tax system equal to 3.8% of total income taxes. In other words, the bottom 40% paid negative 3.8% of total federal income taxes.

In addition, the middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid just 4.7% of total federal income taxes, before Obama even won the election.

via PETER FERRARA: Obama Is So Clueless About Federal Taxes « FOX Forum « FOXNews.com.

Dems Wrong Yet Again – Temporary Stimulus Doesn’t Work

Tickler Leave a comment

This all makes such perfect, logical sense. I can’t believe they refuse to see it.

From the Wall Street Journal . . . .

The incoming Obama administration and congressional Democrats are now considering a second fiscal stimulus package, estimated at more than $500 billion, to follow the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As they do, much can be learned by examining the first.

The major part of the first stimulus package was the $115 billion, temporary rebate payment program targeted to individuals and families that phased out as incomes rose. Most of the rebate checks were mailed or directly deposited during May, June and July.

The argument in favor of these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the economy growing again. What were the results? The chart nearby reveals the answer.

The upper line shows disposable personal income through September. Disposable personal income is what households have left after paying taxes and receiving transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the rebate payments in May through July.

The lower line shows personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand, or the economy.

These results may seem surprising, but they are not. They correspond very closely to what basic economic theory tells us. According to the permanent-income theory of Milton Friedman, or the life-cycle theory of Franco Modigliani, temporary increases in income will not lead to significant increases in consumption. However, if increases are longer-term, as in the case of permanent tax cut, then consumption is increased, and by a significant amount.

After years of study and debate, theories based on the permanent-income model led many economists to conclude that discretionary fiscal policy actions, such as temporary rebates, are not a good policy tool. Rather, fiscal policy should focus on the “automatic stabilizers” (the tendency for tax revenues to decline in a recession and transfer payments such as unemployment compensation to increase in a recession), which are built into the tax-and-transfer system, and on more permanent fiscal changes that will positively affect the long-term growth of the economy.

Why did that consensus seem to break down during the public debates about the fiscal stimulus early this year? One reason may have been the apparent success of the rebate payments in 2001. However, those rebate payments were the first installment of more permanent, multiyear tax cuts passed that same year. Hence, they were not temporary.

Read the full article here.

Once Again, the Press Leaves Obama’s Tax Numbers Unchallenged

Tickler Leave a comment

Another great op-ed from the WSJ on the random tax numbers quoted by the Obama campaign and the loving press’ unwillingness to put up a question mark. Some highlights:

In the last debate, Sen. Obama said, “We both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for. . . . The centerpiece of [McCain’s] economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.”

That $200 billion figure is false. Yet FactCheck.org and most reporters never bothered to ask Mr. Obama where he came up with it. FactCheck.org did discover that Mr. Obama’s claim about “$4 billion in tax breaks for energy companies” came from a two-page memo from the Center for American Progress Action Fund — a political lobby headed by John Podesta, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton, with tax issues handled by two lawyers, Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, former policy directors for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaigns. Those lawyers confused average tax rates (after credits and deductions) with the 35% statutory rate on the next dollar of earnings, so that cutting the latter rate from 35% to 25% would supposedly cut big oil’s $13.4 billion tax bill by 28.5%, or $3.8 billion. That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, by contrast, correctly notes that, “Senator McCain has called for the repeal and reform of a number of tax preferences for oil companies,” which would raise the oil companies’ taxes by $5 billion in 2013.

Read the full article here.

Obama’s Tax Cuts Nonsense, Experts Say

Tickler 1 Comment

The Wall Street Journal posted a piece by the sage staff on the implications of the Oblivious Obama tax cuts.

Now we know: 95% of Americans will get a “tax cut” under Barack Obama after all. Those on the receiving end of a check will include the estimated 44% of Americans who will owe no federal income taxes under his plan.

In most parts of America, getting money back on taxes you haven’t paid sounds a lot like welfare. Ah, say the Obama people, you forget: Even those who pay no income taxes pay payroll taxes for Social Security. Under the Obama plan, they say, these Americans would get an income tax credit up to $500 based on what they are paying into Social Security.

Just two little questions: If people are going to get a tax refund based on what they pay into Social Security, then we’re not really talking about income tax relief, are we? And if what we’re really talking about is payroll tax relief, doesn’t that mean billions of dollars in lost revenue for a Social Security trust fund that is already badly underfinanced?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE TO SEE THE ANSWERS…

“It’s interesting that Mr. Obama calls his plan ‘Making Work Pay,'” says Mr. Biggs, “because the incentives are just the opposite. By expanding benefits for people whose benefits exceed their taxes, you’re increasing their disincentive for work. And you’re doing the same at the top of the income scale, where you are raising their taxes so you can distribute the revenue to others.”

Even more interesting is what Mr. Obama’s “tax cuts” do to Social Security financing. As Mr. Biggs notes, had Mr. Obama proposed to pay for payroll tax relief out of, well, payroll taxes, his plan would never have a chance in Congress. Most members would look at a plan that defunded a trust fund that seniors are counting on for their retirement as political suicide.

And that leads us to the heart of this problem. If the government is going to give tax cuts to 44% of American based on their Social Security taxes — without actually refunding to them the money they are paying into Social Security — Mr. Obama will have to get the funds elsewhere. And this is where “general revenues” turns out to be a more agreeable way of saying “Other People’s Money.”

Yep. It’s just that easy to fool a majority of the American people. Repeat a slogan (95%) long enough and trust they won’t look into it, and the press won’t cover it. Obama’s play them like a fiddle.