Daily news sites: taxes| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates
Tampilkan postingan dengan label taxes. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label taxes. Tampilkan semua postingan

National Prayer Breakfast speaker attracts attention and criticism

National Prayer Breakfast speaker attracts attention and criticism


By James H. Shott

The National Prayer Breakfast is held each year in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February, and is attended by some 3,500 guests. The event is hosted by members of the United States Congress, and this year was co-chaired by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). It is organized by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization and is designed to be a forum for the political, social, and business elite to assemble and build relationships.

Among the speakers this year was President Barack Obama, who told the audience, “We are united in the knowledge of a redeeming savior whose grace is sufficient.” However, he said that even though America’s leaders come together in prayer over national policy and the right direction to lead the country, such talk is often forgotten after the event. “I’d go back to the Oval Office and turn on the cable news networks – and it’s like we didn’t pray!” he said.

Dr. Benjamin Carson, director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, delivered the keynote message, which has drawn criticism from the left as being inappropriately political in a decidedly non-political setting.

However, Dr. Carson's comments were fundamentally about empowering the individual rather than the government, and were non-partisan and delivered respectfully. In fact, he claims political independence, being neither a Republican nor a Democrat. "If there were a party called the Logic Party, I would be a member of that," he told Fox News on Sunday.

That said, Dr. Carson is not the first to inject political messages at the Prayer Breakfast. President Obama himself did so last year, discussing public policy issues such as barring health insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions and reducing tax breaks for the wealthy, and tying them in with popular Bible verses. “[S]o when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street … or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy strong for everybody,” Mr. Obama said on Feb. 2, 2012.

Benjamin Carson's story is one that inspires us all. He grew up in poverty in urban Detroit, but his home was one built on values typical of the 1950s, raised by a single mother with only a third-grade education who worked long hours to support her family, but who understood American values of hard work and determination. He overcame dire poverty, poor grades, a horrible temper, and low self-esteem, all of which worked against his dream of becoming a physician someday. But his mother would not allow him to give up and challenged her two sons to strive for excellence and stressed the importance of education. His mother refused to become a victim, and did not accept excuses for failure.

Today Dr. Carson is a devout Christian, a full professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and he has directed pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for over a quarter of a century. His brother is an aeronautical and mechanical engineer. "I became the brain surgeon and he became the rocket scientist," he said.

He told radio host Armstrong Williams last Friday that his comments were “directed at the situation that is going on in our nation and how we can solve it. ... It’s not an attack on anybody, but it’s saying there are logical solutions for our problems and there are things that we can all get behind — be we right wing, be we left wing."

His condemned political correctness, which he described as dangerous because it interferes with freedom of thought and expression. Americans must stop fearing over-sensitive reactions when they express their thoughts and speak their minds freely, he said, but at the same time respect those with whom they disagree.

“We’ve reached a point where people are actually afraid to talk about what they want to say, because somebody might be offended,” he said, citing the example of people refraining from saying “Merry Christmas.” “We’ve got to get over this sensitivity; it keeps people from saying what they really believe.”

Comparing what is happening in America to history, he said: "I think particularly about ancient Rome. Very powerful — nobody could even challenge them militarily … they destroyed themselves from within,” he said. “Moral decay. Fiscal irresponsibility.”

And he offered suggestions for taxation and health care that require far less government involvement than current systems. Citing religious tithing, he suggested a flat tax where everyone pays the same rate, with no loopholes. And he suggested replacing the Affordable Care Act with health savings accounts opened at birth that could be passed on to surviving family members and could receive contributions other than from the owner of the plan to assist the financially disadvantaged.

These are sensible ideas, but they will not gain the support of the control freaks that run our government because they disenfranchise the special interests that Dr. Carson referred to as the fourth branch of government.

Cross-posted from Observations



Poetic Justice: Shocked Obama Supporters Discover Their Taxes Went Up

By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle

Stolen From Wake Up America (With Permission)



One difference between those that voted for Obama and those that did not, is that those that did not vote for Obama are not surprised in the least that in the fiscal cliff deal, taxes went up, not only for the so-called rich, but for 77 percent of all American workers.

Via Bloomberg:

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday. 
One percent of households, or those with incomes over $506,210, would pay an average of $73,633 more in taxes.

80 percent of households making between $50,000 and $200,000 will pay an additional average of $1,635 in taxes withheld from their paychecks.

Also, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, the tax burden will increase more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

Conservatives making  $50,000 and $200,000, that are now seeing smaller paychecks, are suffering as much as liberals making equal amounts, but the conservatives are definitely not surprised. On the other hand, Obama supporters, are expressing anger, shock and outrage over Washington's fingers snatching more money from their paychecks.

Obama supporters believed the statement below, conservatives did not.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”---- ” Barack Obama, September 2008. “

 Joseph Curl over at Washington Times visited one of the most liberal websites on the Internet and reports on some of the shocked outrage by Obama supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

[...]

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
Now of course, some obamabots can't bring themselves to blame Obama because they reelected him despite the fact that Mitt Romney and Republicans warned them Obama was going to raise their taxes, and they cannot cast the blame on Republicans because the GOP has been extremely vocal in the battle to extend all tax cuts, but they lost.

So those Obama supporters found someone else to blame:

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

It is the payroll departments fault.

More:
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.

“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
Now, even before Obama is inaugurated for his second term, to which these very people are completely responsible for, they are already expressing buyer's remorse:
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away a lot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

A quick note to Obama supporters, those that ran to the election polls and pulled that lever for Barack Obama.

Sit down and STFU, you voted for this, you got what you voted for and have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about it now.

Deal with it... the rest of us have to because of your uninformed decisions.

Housing Starts

The following chart shows the number of single unit housing starts divided by the number of housing starts with 5 units or more.


Click to enlarge.

The "ownership society" is in serious trouble.

The term appears to have been used originally by President Bush (for example in a speech February 20, 2003 in Kennesaw, Georgia) as a phrase to rally support for his tax-cut proposals (Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, Bush OKs Funding Bill for Fiscal '03, Feb 21, 2003 Scott Lindlaw). From 2004 Bush supporters described the ownership society in much broader and more ambitious terms, including specific policy proposals concerning home ownership, medicine, education and savings.

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

Real Personal Current Taxes per Civilian Employed


Click to enlarge.

An optimist would exclaim, "Yay! The government's going to lower taxes and the number of civilian employed will increase dramatically! That's clearly how we'll make it back to the median trend line in red. No worries!"

Unfortunately, I'm not an optimist.

1. The largest peak was in the early 2000s. We returned to the median. It was painful.
2. The second largest peak was in the late 2007 to early 2008 period. We returned to the median. It was painful.
3. We seem to be peaking again.
4. What's up with that blue trend line?
5. Who's up for a game of fiscal cliff diving?

Source Data:
St. Louis Fed: Custom Chart

Bill Maher vs Mitt Romney Taxes, Undecided Voters And More,

"And that, in a nutshell, is America's celebrated, undecided voter: put on a pedestal by the media as if they were Hamlet in a think-tank, searching out every last bit of information, high-minded arbiters pouring over policy positions and matching them against their own philosophies. Please, they mostly fall into a category political scientists call 'low information voters,' otherwise known as 'dipsh*ts.'"

Watch the segment above to hear Maher's full analysis (starting around the 2:15 mark) as well as why Donald Trump offering voting advice to "Liberal Republican" Kim Kardashian (also undecided) is a microcosm of the 2012 election.



The Source Is Huffington Post

Romney May Have Paid No Federal Income Tax From 1999 to 2001

Romney May Have Paid No Federal Income Tax From 1999 to 2001


are guessing that Romney may have paid near zero federal taxes in 2009 due to losses on his investments resulting from the financial crisis. They probably have the right idea, just the wrong year.
It is true that Romney suffered capital losses on his investments in 2009 that might act to shield much of his income in that year from taxes, but he would have to be a complete idiot to allow his tax planners to file a return showing no income taxes paid just as he was gearing up for a presidential run. But, then again, we are talking about someone who waited until 2010 to close his wife's Swiss bank account.
Much more likely to this writer is that Romney probably does have one or more years in his recent history where he paid near zero taxes, but the year in question is probably not 2009. Much more likely candidates are the tax years 1999 to 2001 when he supposedly left his high paying job at Bain and accepted a smaller $275,000 salary to head the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. It is reported that once the Olympics showed a profit, Romney ended up donating his salary to charities, thus further lowering his reported income for tax purposes.
His lower salary and loss of some board member compensation would mean less current income to shelter from 1999 to 2001. But, his tax shelters would have lost none of their potency. He was already utilizing IRAs and 401(k)s to shelter much of his investment income, possibly worth as much as $100 million today, from taxes. He was already making use of numerous off-shore tax havens in the Cayman Islands and other foreign locations and admits to having had a Swiss bank account in his wife's name. He admits that he had a trust established for his children to shelter as much as $100 million more of his wealth from taxation. And much of his income came from Bain Capital private equity investment funds located offshore so much of their profits could be deferred for ten years or limited to a maximum tax rate of 15 percent, a special tax provision only available to private equity and hedge fund managers.
Also, the leveraged buyout business took a big hit in 1999 and 2000 as the country entered a recession so he likely had significant capital losses to deduct. This was followed in 2001 by the dotcom collapse. As a large wealthy investor it is likely he was being put into numerous IPO's available only to the well-connected and many of these high-tech investments most likely soured in 2001 leading to further tax deductible capital losses.
Some may argue that someone who donates his salary to charity or has investment losses deserves to pay no taxes. But, they are missing the point. Romney's vast personal fortune of between $100 million and $200 million at the time was accreting at some 20 percent per year so how should he able to avoid paying taxes on the $20 to $40 million of dividends and interest income and profits and capital gains he must have been receiving on his investments? Donating a $275,000 salary to charity is chump change compared with avoiding taxation on tens of millions of profits each year.
Of course, some will argue that this is all just speculation. What else are concerned citizens to do when a candidate for president, running on a platform of being business smart and the man to fix the economy, refuses to tell us how he made his money and whether he paid his fair share of taxes along the way?
Some may argue that this is all legal. That our laws allow for the wealthiest to accumulate $400 million plus fortunes and pay little to no taxes. But, that is exactly the point. Who do you think is writing our tax laws? It is the wealthiest of our country that are lobbying our government for tax breaks and making large campaign contributions to elected officials to ensure these tax breaks not only continue, but are amplified and extended. And who is their boy, Mitt Romney.

John R. Talbott is a best-selling author and economic consultant to families whose books predicted the housing crash and the economic crisis. 

Obama gives in to ruthless GOP cuts against poor rich keep tax breaks

Obama gives in to ruthless GOP cuts against poor rich keep tax  breaks

Inside The Budget Deal: Vulnerable Populations Targeted, But Family Planning Saved
First 12-04-2011 11:44 AM EDT | Updated: 12-04-2011 12:00 AM EDT

But not the budget items that are off limits during elections...both democrats and republicans avoid the big three where the most money is wasted...



WASHINGTON –- Congressional leaders unveiled their final budget deal early Tuesday, a $1.049 trillion spending plan that axes billions of dollars for some of the most vulnerable populations while preserving a handful of priorities for both parties.
The budget, which will keep the government funded through the end of September, includes an across-the-board cut of 0.25 percent to every domestic agency.
Key highlights include:
$600 million in cuts to community health centers.
$414 million in cuts to grants for state and local police departments.
A whopping $1.6 billion cut in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget, of which nearly $1 billion comes from grants for clean water and other projects by local governments and Indian tribes.
Cuts to homeland security programs for the first time ever, though much of the agency's two percent decrease stems from a $786 million cut in first responder grants to state and local governments.
A $7 million cut to the Bureau of Public Debt, which accounts for and provides reports on the debt.
A $1 billion cut to HIV and disease-prevention funds.
A $3 billion cut to agriculture programs, the biggest portion of which comes from the Women Infants and Children fund, which loses $504 million.
A $390 million cut to low-income heating assistance; Community Development Funds are cut by $942 million.
Contributions to the United Nations and other international institutions are cut by $377 million.
$45 million pulled from nuclear nonproliferation funds.
A $650 million cut to federal highway investments.
A rider tucked in by lawmakers from Western states that allows states to remove wolves from the endangered species list.
Democrats were able to preserve some of their education priorities, including keeping Pell Grant awards at $5,550 and giving a slight boost to funds for Head Start. They also prevented Republicans from slashing funds for the National Institutes of Health: The agency will absorb a $260 million cut, rather than the $1.6 billion cut sought by House Republicans.
Democrats also rescued family planning programs from elimination; instead, they will face a five percent cut. But the budget does restore the D.C. abortion ban, which prohibits the city from using federal or local funds for abortions, for five months.
Republicans can claim victory in defunding two programs under health care reform: the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan and Free Choice Voucher programs. They also succeeded in eliminating several of the Obama administration’s “czars” for healthcare, climate change, autos and urban affairs.