One of those occasions when one picture really does speak a thousand words.
$833,970 in back taxes is owed to the government by Obama’s government aides.
This story was originally posted by ABC back in January, yet no follow-up by them, or any other propaganda media outfit has taken place.
Isn’t that an amazing coincidence?
But this isn’t limited to the 36 Obama aides.
At the EPA for example, 413 people owe more than $19 million in back taxes!
At the FDIC, 185 employees owe more than $3 million; and five people at the U.S. Tax Court owe $62,508
This is why Democrats are so eager to raise taxes, they don’t pay them anyway!
Simon Black, the Senior Editor at SovereignMan.com wrote the following article that I felt worth passing on:
In 1936, the US government began circulating a series of pamphlets to explain its brand new Social Security program, plus the associated taxes. Initially, the Social Security tax was set at 2%. The government promised it would rise to 3% in 1949, with no additional increases EVER:
“[F]inally, beginning in 1949. . . you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay.”
In 1949, the tax rose to 3% as scheduled. But it only took five years for the government to break its promise. The tax rose to 4% in 1954, 4.5% in 1957, 5% in 1959… and continued to rise for decades. On January 1st it will be 12.4%.
Politicians routinely make bold promises about tax policy… and they almost always end up being lies. Raising taxes, i.e. plundering the wealth of citizens, is one of the oldest tactics in the playbook for insolvent governments, and you can be 100% certain that your taxes will increase despite any promises to the contrary.
Perhaps most dangerously, politicians fail to understand that raising tax rates does NOT actually increase government tax revenue.
In the US, for example, government tax revenue has consistently been 17.7% of GDP since the end of World War II, plus/minus a very tight band. Similarly, the British government has consistently collected 35% of GDP in tax revenue.
Yet over the decades, tax rates have been all over the board… from 0% to over 90%! Plus variations in corporate profits tax, payroll tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax, and (for the Brits) VAT.
Rates go up, rates go down… it doesn’t affect overall government tax revenue one bit. Despite the obvious facts, though, politicians keep raising tax rates.
On January 1, 2013, the US government will impose what my tax attorney calls the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. And some of the rate increases are simply extraordinary.
The estate tax exemption, for instance, is being slashed by EIGHTY PERCENT! And the amount that the Obama administration will tax the rest of your estate will increase to a whopping 55%!
Moreover, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43.4%. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.
Remember Finance 101– the price of a stock is theoretically the present value of discounted future cash flows. In English, this means that share prices should rise and fall based on the market’s expectations about future earnings… and over the long run, future dividends.
As a result of this tax policy, many investors who own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33%. And since their investment returns are falling so dramatically, it stands to reason that the investments themselves become less valuable.
This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It’s as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying “PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE.” It’s genius.
This is the tip of the iceberg. Taxes will keep rising. Investment returns will be destroyed. Any incentive to start a business will be destroyed. Any benefit to your heirs for what you have worked your entire life to pass on will be destroyed.
All of this because a handful of morally bankrupt individuals who run financially bankrupt governments fail to understand simple truths about tax policy.
Bear this in mind over the next few weeks, because many new taxes will take effect on January 1st, and it’s imperative to take defensive action first. I strongly recommend consulting with your tax advisor as soon as possible.
Are you ready for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)? This is the biggie in the “fiscal cliff” that looms ahead.
It will it affect close to 27 million families. They are unaware of it. They have not budgeted for it.
Yes, the coming financial hit applies to this tax year. Even if the new, incoming Congress applies an AMT patch after January, experts say it will be an accounting nightmare. It’s difficult to undo the tax once the filing season has begun in January, and at the least, it would result in long processing delays of all returns.
If Congress decides to revoke it before January 1, the IRS will have to re-program its computers. Americans will not get their tax refunds early. They will have to wait an extra two months for the refunds they count on.
The AMT will eat up next year’s tax refund — and then some. Surprise!
From 1986 to 1990, ALF aired on NBC. The title character is a friendly but opinionated extraterrestrial nicknamed ALF (an acronym for Alien Life Form), who crash lands in the garage of the suburban middle-class Tanner family.
In an early scene from the 1986 episode “I’m Your Puppet,” ALF had ordered a ventriloquist dummy, but used Willie Tanner’s money to pay for it. Willie’s daughter Lynn confronts ALF’s cavalier use of other people’s money to pay for things he wants:
Lynn Tanner: “You’ve got to stop spending other people’s money.”
ALF: “People like it when you spend their money. On Melmac, that’s how you said ‘I care.’”
President Obama is pitted against Mitt Romney as the President who cares. Well, it’s easy to care with other people’s money.
I’m amazed that the majority of American’s don’t understand this principle. Passing laws to tax some people more than other people and then to take that money as your own is worse than what Bernie Madoff did to his investment clients.
Tax payers don’t have a choice in the way they lose their money when governments get involved. It’s how the government shows that it “cares.”
This morning, while watching Morning Joe on MSNBC, I was treated to the fact that President Obama would be speaking from the White House Rose Garden later today to announce his plan to cut the national debt.
Even co-host Mika Brzezinski and regular guests Mark Halperin and Jon Meacham questioned whether President Obama is serious or whether it is a positioning tactic for re-election.
They discussed highlights of the president’s proposals which include a $3 trillion in savings in addition to the approximately $1 trillion in cuts already called for under the debt ceiling deal enacted in August.
The proposed savings over the next 10 years would include:
$1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct.
Just over $1 trillion in war savings coming from ending the combat mission in Iraq and withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
Also $580 billion in cuts to mandatory spending which includes approximately $250 billion from Medicare and $80 billion from Medicaid. White House officials say the Medicare cuts will not come from raising the retirement age, but may include some means testing.
The White House is calling the new program the “Buffet Rule”, named after billionaire investor, Warren Buffet, who has frequently argued that the rich aren’t taxed enough.
What they didn’t say out loud, but scrolling on the bottom of the screen was a statement that a reduction of military retirement benefits would also take place.
All of what I was seeing on MSNBC brought a number of questions to my mind.
First, is this proposed cut to Medicare that President Obama is going to suggest going to be in addition to the $818 billion cut to Medicare Part A and the cuts to Medicare Part B which would bring the total Obama administration cuts to Medicare to $1.05 trillion in the first ten years and $4 trillion over the first 20 years?
Secondly, the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq? I thought the President and his handlers took the credit multiple times for the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq when the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division crossed the border into Kuwait in August of 2010.
Thirdly, it strikes me as odd when I hear a proposal to raise taxes on the rich by closing loopholes and restricting deductions, but stretching it over ten years, by the same people who reject suggestions to completely change tax system because it would take too much time. Would it take longer than ten years?
And lastly, the “Buffet Rule?” Really? We are talking about the same CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, aren’t we? You know, Berkshire Hathaway, the company who still owes back taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009. An administration that would use that name for a new proposal that includes tax increases would hire someone who hasn’t paid his taxes to be Secretary of the Treasury!
What the President is doing today, is making a statement that will be followed in a couple of days with speeches criticizing the Republicans for blocking “progress.”
Obama-speak. Washington-speak. Why don’t we try something new and refreshing…truth and openness.
A bill introduced by Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania would set up a taxpayer bailout of underfunded, multiemployer union pension plans—the “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act of 2010.”
There are some 1,500 multiemployer pension plans in the United States, which are unique to unions. In these plans, multiple companies pay into the pension plan, but each company assumes the total liability.
Multiemployer plans were designed to let union members move from union job to union job and keep the same pension plan. But if a company participating in the plan as part of its collective bargaining agreement were to go bankrupt, under “last man standing” accounting rules,the other participating companies in the plan are forced to fully fund these Cadillac union pensions.
Casey’s bill would create a line item on the federal budget through the PBGC to fund these union pension bailouts annually — union pensions that are underwater as a result of mismanagement that pre-dates the 2008 financial upheaval.
What this means is that companies with union labor often have pension liabilities that are several multiples higher than the pension expenditures they report — the Kroger grocery store chain shocked analysts last year when it disclosed its multiemployer pension liabilities more than doubled in a year to $1.2 billion.
On November 1st, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ceased to take public comment on a new rule requiring that companies more accurately report liabilities they have from participation in multiemployer pension plans. Unless FASB is persuaded otherwise, the rule takes effect December 15th.
FASB’s new rule could effectively wipe out the paper worth of many companies, especially in the trucking and construction industries. Once banks and creditors are aware of these staggering pension liabilities, it will make it nearly impossible for union businesses to get loans, credit lines or bonding.
The effects of having to meet reality will almost certainly cause a significant drop in stock prices for those companies affected and, as a result, may cause a large ripple effect throughout the rest of the economy. In those cases where the liabilities exceed the value of the unionized companies, it is entirely possible many of those companies will go out of business, laying off tens of thousands of employees, and further causing a drop in economic activity.
One example of a company that would likely go out of business is YRC trucking, which employs approximately 35,000 Teamsters. While the freight currently carried by YRC would likely be picked up by other carriers (many of which are non-union), the loss of members (and their dues) would be devastating for the Teamsters and the Democrats.
Since many of these multiemployer plans are in financial difficulty, Casey’s bill, if enacted, could dramatically increase the federal deficit, putting even more pressure on the American taxpayer and the economy. Depending on events, it might add billions to government spending. The current underfunding levels are estimated at about $165 billion which will result in even higher future deficits.
Democrats don’t want voters to know that their union benefactors may further cause the economy to fall further or more companies to close and jobs to be lost. As a result, Democrats were not talking about it on the campaign trail. Instead they’re hoping they can work out a deal during the lame duck session, sticking taxpayers with another $165 billion union bailout.
Democrats know that another union bailout will likely make them even bigger pariahs with the American people, the very survival of their party rests on their ability on passing this poisonous piece of legislation. If they fail, the ramifications for the Democrats are disastrous.
If the Democratic plan being considered is to tuck the Casey bill neatly into an extension of the Bush tax cuts, it would force the Republicans to choose to either support the union bailout or allow the tax cuts to expire which would result in higher taxes for everyone. One can only hope it doesn’t get added as an amendment.