Tim Hawkins - The Government Can

Economic Freedom of North America

Economic Freedom of North America is an attempt to gauge the extent of the restrictions on economic freedom imposed by governments in North America. The index published here measures economic freedom at two levels, the subnational and the all-government. At the subnational level, it measures the impact on economic freedom of provincial and municipal governments in Canada and of state and local governments in the United States. At the all-government level, it measures the impact of all levels of government—federal, provincial/state, and municipal/local—in Canada and the United States. All 10 provinces and 50 states are included.

Click Here To View Full Report...

The Socialist Occupy Wall Street mob invades Oakland, CA

Gene Simmons: “Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened"

'Debt crisis like fat people blaming bakers'

by Gene Simmons

THE first thing I would do if I was the benevolent dictator of planet Earth would be to fire all politicians — who are basically university lecturers in positions of power.

They might be able to quote the existential philosophers but that doesn't mean they know how to run businesses.

Countries are businesses — they have imports and exports and you want your exports to be higher than your imports so you can have a profit.

You want to make sure that whatever money you give out to your population is money that you can afford to send out.

Countries are a house of cards — and when the bottom few cards fall down they all topple over. Look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

If businessmen ran the country, this wouldn't happen. Richard Branson would make a great PM. He's more qualified.

Government makes money by taxing and spending.

It's so simple. If you spend more than you tax, you're out of business. MPs don't know what they're talking about.

And we created this miserable economic state. It's like fat people who think it's the bakery's fault they got fat.

No, you kept going in there and you kept eating cake. It's not the bakery's responsibility to tell you to slow down.

Banks shouldn't have to tell you not to borrow so much.

They're banks — they're supposed to lend you money. If you can't afford to take out £100,000, don't take out a £400,000 mortgage.

It's your responsibility to be a grown-up and take care of yourself.

Thank God we have lending institutions and banks. The planes that fly through the sky, the phones we use every day, the cars we drive, the houses we live in, the entire economy is all funded by firms who borrow in return for interest.

This mess is our fault — corporations have no responsibility.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to human beings. The welfare state sounds wonderful but it doesn't work.

Governments hand out more money than they have to support welfare and they land in debt.

Then they have to borrow money — and then there's interest on top of that.

That's bad business. And it has created a culture of entitlement.

When I was growing up my mother went to work. There was no welfare. If you worked, you made money.

If you didn't work, you had to figure it out — you'd go and wash dishes.

The new breed of 20-year-olds don't want to do those jobs.

So people from other countries come over and are thrilled to get the chance to wipe the floors.

Kiss are the only business-savvy band about and I make no apologies for that.

We outsell The Beatles and Elvis put together.

People say things like: "Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?"

Well, actually, I never asked for your opinion. I'll let you know when I have enough money.

A Short History of the Income Tax

Presidents Wilson (left) and Taft, fathers of the modern income tax

by John Steele Gordon

Whether the "millionaires and billionaires" are actually paying their fair share of taxes is a matter for the electorate to decide. After all, fairness is hardly an objective standard.

Before the modern era, however, the federal tax system was manifestly unfair by any reasonable standard, grossly biased in favor of the well off. Ironically, attempting to fix that unfairness is what has brought us to the present moment, with a federal tax system that is grotesquely complex, often arbitrary, and corrupted by mutual back-scratching between members of Congress and influential lobbyists.

After the Civil War, nearly all the wartime taxes—including the nation's first income tax—were repealed and the federal government relied mostly on the tariff for revenues. It provided the government with more than ample peacetime income. In 1882, the government had revenues of $403 million, but expenses were only $257 million, a staggering budget surplus of nearly 36%. The reason the tariff was so high was, ostensibly, to protect America's burgeoning industries from foreign competition.

Of course, the owners of those burgeoning industries—i.e., the rich—were greatly helped by the protection, which enabled them to charge higher prices and make greater profits than if they had had to face unbridled foreign competition.

But the tariff is a consumption tax, which is simply added to the price of the goods sold. And consumption taxes are inherently regressive. The poor, by definition, must spend all of their income on necessities and thus pay consumption taxes on all of their income. The rich, while living in luxury, bank most of their income and largely escape these types of taxes.

As the vast surpluses piled up in the Treasury, the political pressure to institute an income tax on the rich grew steadily. In 1894, with Democrat Grover Cleveland in the White House and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, a federal income tax became law. The new tax, however, was very different from the Civil War income tax, which had exempted only the poor. The new one hit only the rich, imposing a 2% tax on incomes above $4,000. Less than 1% of American households in 1894 met that income threshold.

Needless to say, the tax was attacked in court, in a 1895 test case called Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust. The case turned on the definition of a "direct tax," which the Constitution requires to be apportioned equally among the states according to population, something obviously impossible with an income tax.

The court split 4-4 as to whether the new income tax was constitutional. One member of the court, Justice Howell Jackson of Tennessee, was absent because of illness (and died less than three months later). But with the case drawing enormous public attention, the court agreed to reargue it and Justice Jackson rose from his deathbed to hear it.

Jackson was known to favor the income tax and it was assumed that it would now be upheld 5-4. But one of the other justices switched his vote (the opinion is unsigned and we don't know by whom or why) and it was voted down 5-4.

The income tax was dead. But the pressure to tax the incomes of the largely untaxed rich only increased, especially as the Progressive wing of the Republican Party grew in strength under Theodore Roosevelt. By the time of the administration of President William Howard Taft (1909-13) the pressure was becoming overwhelming. One representative suggested simply repassing the 1894 tax bill and daring the Supreme Court to overturn it a second time.

That idea horrified Taft, who revered the court. He feared that it would weaken its position as the final arbiter of the Constitution. He came up with a brilliant, very lawyerly, alternative: He proposed a constitutional amendment to legalize a personal income tax, while meanwhile imposing a tax on corporate profits. In the early 20th century such a tax was, in effect, a tax on the rich. As the corporate income tax is technically an excise tax, there was no constitutional problem. Taft's solution was implemented and in 1913 the 16th Amendment was declared ratified, just as Taft was leaving office.

The new president, Woodrow Wilson, and the strongly Democratic Congress promptly passed a personal income tax. It kicked in at 1% on incomes above $3,000 (a comfortable upper middle-class income at the time) and reached 7% on incomes over $500,000. But there were many deductions, bringing the effective tax rates down sharply from the marginal ones—a feature of the tax system ever since.

Unfortunately the corporate income tax, originally intended as only a stopgap measure, was left in place unchanged. As a result, for the last 98 years we have had two completely separate and uncoordinated income taxes. It's a bit as if corporations were owned by Martians, otherwise untaxed, instead of by their very earthly—and taxed—stockholders.

This has had two deeply pernicious effects. One, it allowed the very rich to avoid taxes by playing the two systems against each other. When the top personal income tax rate soared to 75% in World War I, for instance, thousands of the rich simply incorporated their holdings in order to pay the much lower corporate tax rate.

There has since been a sort of evolutionary arms race, as tax lawyers and accountants came up with ever new ways to game the system, and Congress endlessly added to the tax code to forbid or regulate the new strategies. The income tax act of 1913 had been 14 pages long. The Revenue Act of 1942 was 208 pages long, 78% of them devoted to closing or defining loopholes. It has only gotten worse.

The other pernicious consequence of the separate corporate and personal income taxes has been a field day for demagogues and the misguided to claim that the rich are not paying their "fair share." Warren Buffett recently claimed that he had paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year. But Berkshire Hathaway, of which Mr. Buffett owns 30%, paid $5.6 billion in corporate income taxes. Were Berkshire Hathaway a Subchapter S corporation and exempt from corporate income taxes, Mr. Buffett's personal tax bill would have been 231 times higher, at $1.6 billion.

Just as in the late 19th century, the tax code is now hopelessly arbitrary and unfair. It requires a complete overhaul.

Mr. Gordon is the author of "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" (HarperCollins, 2004).

What About The 51% Who Pay No Taxes?

Intelligence Tax?

Geithner: We Must Tax Small Businesses to Protect Big Gov

Who owns your money?

Christie blasts NJ Dems for wanting to raise gas tax

Obama's view on taxes

The End of the Beginning

New York City schools get one teacher for the price of two

by Susan Edelman

In the city's funny math, you get only one teacher for the price of two.

The Department of Education pays about 1,500 teachers for time they spend on union activities -- and pays other teachers to replace them in the classroom.

It's a sweetheart deal that costs taxpayers an extra $9 million a year to pay fill-ins for instructors who are sprung -- at full pay -- to carry out responsibilities for the United Federation of Teachers.

Read More...

Michael Moore: Americans' Money is Not Theirs It's 'Ours'

Chuck Norris : Wake Up America!

Secretary of Treasury admits his budget is “unsustainable”

Obama Budget Contains 15 Hidden Tax Hikes

by Mattie Corrao

With the release of his FY 2012 budget today, the President is attempting to brand reckless spending and higher taxes as fiscal reform. In reality, this is the same foolhardy budgeting we’ve seen over the past two years of the Obama Administration, with one difference: more spending.

Record overspending – the President’s budget calls for a record level of overspending, after the unprecedented growth of the previous two years. The plan calls for spending to reach $3.8 trillion this year, mounting 25.3 percent of GDP, the highest share since World War II. This pales in comparison to the ten-year outlook; the budget calls for $8.7 trillion in new spending, projecting outlays of $46 trillion over the next decade.

Digging the hole deeper - While CBO recently estimated the FY 2011 budget deficit would reach $1.5 trillion, President Obama’s budget overspends at the highest rate that country has ever witnessed, creating a $1.65 trillion deficit for FY 2011. The President has falsely alleged the budget will “reduce” the deficit by $1.1 trillion, neglecting to mention that this is less than one tenth of the overspending his budget requires in the next decade.

Increases taxes to fuel higher spending – Instead of cutting spending, the President is increasing taxes to grow government. The budget hikes taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years while spending almost ten times that in the same period.

Read More...

Out-of-State NY Property Owners Could Face Huge Tax

by Craig Karmin

Connecticut and New Jersey residents with a Hamptons summer cottage or a Manhattan pied-a-terre are about to get a nasty surprise: New York state wants more taxes from them.

A New York court ruled last month that all income earned by a New Canaan, Conn., couple is subject to New York state taxes because they own a summer home on Long Island they used only a few times a year. They have been hit with an additional tax bill of $1.06 million.

Tax experts and real estate brokers say this ruling could boost the tax bill for thousands of business executives who own New York City apartments they use only occasionally. It could also hurt sales in the Hamptons and New York's other vacation-home communities.

"People will think twice about spending any summer time in New York," says Robert Willens, a New York-based tax consultant. "The amount of tax they could be subjected to is likely to outweigh the benefit."

Read More...

Howard Dean: 'It's Government's Job to Redistribute Wealth'

Where do all our taxes go?

Click to enlarge: