Soros says he wants to pay more taxes, but prefers Ireland where he paid less than $1,000

George Soros has joined a petition to scrap tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But the billionaire prefers Ireland, where his hedge fund paid just $962 in taxes in 2013, according to Bloomberg.

Four hundred wealthy Americans have appealed to the US Congress urging Republican lawmakers not to cut their taxes. They say the GOP shouldn’t cut taxes for the wealthiest when the US debt is at all-time high and inequality is rising.

The letter, signed, among others, by George Soros and Steven Rockefeller, says the proposal “would lead to deep cuts in critical services such as education, Medicare, and Medicaid, and would hamper our nation’s ability to restore investments in our people and communities.”

The signatories are among the highest earning five percent of Americans, who have $1.5 million in assets or who are making $250,000 or more a year.

The proposed cuts are part of President Donald Trump’s program aimed to spur growth and jobs in the country. They would add at least $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the current national debt. This deficit “would leave us unable to meet our country’s current needs and restrict us in advancing any future investments,” the letter said.

One of the rich who signed the document is George Soros, who has always said wealthy people should pay more taxes. However, he prefers not to pay taxes in the United States, but in countries with more favorable tax laws.

In 2015 Bloomberg reported that Soros’ hedge fund paid $962 in tax in Ireland on $3,851 net income through 2013, while the remaining $7.2 billion operating income was allocated to investors.

A year later, Soros shut down the Irish company and set up another in the tax-friendly Caymans.

By the time the new company in the Caymans was created, Soros had reportedly funneled $13.3 billion in fees, which means he had dodged almost $7 billion in taxes if his business had been entirely located in the United States.

Half of Americans currently pay no federal income tax at all!

Screen Shot 2017-09-28 at 4.21.56 PM

This tax cut isn’t for the middle class, which only pays 2.5% now

By
REX
NUTTING
COLUMNIST

Most American families don’t pay very much in federal income tax, so it’s no surprise that they aren’t clamoring for another tax cut.

Donald Trump and the Republican leaders in Washington have rolled out a plan for another big tax cut, but most Americans wonder why they are bothering with taxes when there are so many other more pressing problems.

There may have been a time, a generation ago, when cutting tax rates was the most popular thing a politician could do. But that day is long gone. I guess you might say Americans are tired of tax cuts, there have been so many.

Today, most Americans aren’t clamoring for lower taxes, probably because most of us don’t pay very much in federal income taxes. Our tax burden has rarely been lower. The latest data show that the 60% of families in the middle of the income distribution — those between about $32,000 and about $140,000 — pay an average of just 2.5% of their income in federal income taxes.

Nearly half of Americans owe no federal income tax at all, but they do pay taxes: payroll taxes to fund Social Security and Medicare, tariffs, excise taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, state and local income taxes, and so on. If they have a problem with taxes, it’s not with the federal income tax.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-dont-want-or-need-a-tax-cut-2017-09-27

A bill that cuts federal income taxes for middle-class families makes absolutely no sense, except as a sad way of camouflaging the real intent of the bill: Giving millions of dollars to the very wealthy, who happen to be the only people who are really benefiting from our uneven economic growth.

The pollsters at Gallup periodically ask people what they think is the most important problem in America. Taxes don’t make the top 10 list; only 2% of Americans mention taxes as a big problem.

In real America — outside the closed doors on Capitol Hill and at corporate boardrooms — the most pressing issues are distrust in the government, racism, immigration, national unity, tensions with North Korea, health care, the economy and jobs, disaster relief, the environment and crime. Even the media is mentioned more often as a major problem than taxes are.

But in Washington, cutting taxes is the most important thing on the agenda. Why? Because the Republican Party apparently is a wholly owned subsidiary of large multinational corporations and the richest 0.1% of Americans.

The people get it. In an NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll, 62% of those polled said taxes should go up on the wealthy, and 55% said taxes should rise for corporations. Meanwhile, 53% said their own taxes should stay where they are.

So, the American people don’t need a tax cut (they pay 2.5%) and they don’t want it, but perhaps a tax cut would be good for them? That’s the argument being pushed by Trump and his advisers: They say cutting taxes, especially on businesses, will unleash the economy, create jobs, and boost incomes.

The problem, they say, is that corporate taxes are too high in the U.S. Our companies can’t compete with foreign-based firms. It’s true that the statutory rate is very high —35% federal corporate tax rate (plus varying levels of state income taxes, plus individual income taxes paid by shareholders).

But nobody pays retail, and nobody pays the statutory rate. Corporations take advantage of lots of special provisions in the tax code to lower their taxes. The effective marginal tax rate on new investments is 19.7%, “very much line with our major trading partners,” according to a paper published by the Obama Treasury Department in January.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross say simplifying and lowering corporate taxes could add 1 percentage point or more to the nation’s sustainable growth rate. So, instead of 2% growth, we could have 3% or maybe even 4%.

Trump says we could get to 6% growth, but why not just say 100%? There is no support — empirical or theoretical — for such a statement. The best economic evidence shows that tax reform could add about 0.1% to 0.3% to annual growth rates. That’s only about one-tenth of the impact promised by the Trump administration.

And that’s if tax reform is revenue-neutral (meaning it won’t add to the deficit).

Unfortunately, the Republicans are relying on those implausible growth rates to argue that their $2.2 trillion tax cut will largely pay for itself. But if we don’t get the growth, then the deficits will climb.

Higher government deficits in a time of full employment can lead to slower economic growth, because they reduce national savings, forcing the nation to rely even more from foreigners for savings, increasing the current-account deficit and leading to a higher trade deficit. Which is exactly what these tax cuts are trying to prevent.

Trump says cutting taxes is all about creating jobs. But the tax cuts in 2001, 2003, and 2004 were designed to funnel money to the “job creators,” who would in turn hire millions of people. But, as it turned out, the rich got the money, but hiring didn’t accelerate.

Trickle down didn’t work.

The real constraint on the economy right now isn’t the number of jobs being created, but productivity. We need to invest much more in technology, equipment, buildings and workers. However, there’s little that cutting taxes can do about that problem, because companies have plenty of capital to invest, if they wanted to.

Profits are near record levels, while net investment is near record low levels. Giving corporations more cash won’t lead to more investment unless companies see a positive return.

The Trump-Ryan tax cuts don’t solve any of our problems, unless you believe that the wealthy don’t have quite enough money yet. But the latest figures from the Federal Reserve show that the top 1% is capturing a greater share of both national income and wealth.

House Speaker Paul Ryan calls tax cuts the “secret sauce” for a better economy. But that the secret sauce is just the same old ketchup and mayo.

Single-payer healthcare advances in California — without way to pay $400-billion tab…

Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 11.45.54 AM

By Patrick McGreevy

A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.

“Despite the incredible progress California has made, millions still do not have access to health insurance and millions more cannot afford the high deductibles and co-pays, and they often forgo care,” Lara said during a floor debate on the bill.

The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.

Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.

“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”

Berryhill also said the private sector is better suited to provide healthcare.

“I absolutely don’t trust the government to run our health system,” he said. “What has the government ever done right?”

Lara’s bill would provide a Medicare-for-all-type system that he believed would guarantee health coverage for all Californians without the out-of-pocket costs. Under a single-payer plan, the government replaces private insurance companies, paying doctors and hospitals for healthcare.

The California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill, released a fiscal analysis this week that proposed raising the state sales and business receipts taxes by 2.3% to raise $106 billion of the annual cost, with the rest proposed to come from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services.

Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 11.47.41 AM

Sen. Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado Hills) called the plan “reckless” and said the taxes would hurt businesses and families while financially crippling the state government.

“It’s offensive to the people who have to pay for it,” he said.

Some Democrats felt the bill was rushed and undeveloped. Sen. Ben Hueso (D-San Diego) withheld his vote on the bill on grounds it does not provide enough detail of what a single-payer system would look like.

“This is the Senate kicking the can down the road to the Assembly and asking the Assembly to fill in all of the blanks,” Hueso said. “That’s not going to happen this year.”

Lara said action is required because of what is happening in Washington.

“With President Trump’s promise to abandon the Affordable Care Act as we know it — for one that leaves millions without access to care — California is once again tasked to lead,” he told his colleagues.

He said his father recently had heart bypass surgery but went through the emergency room for help after his insurance company initially turned him down.

Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.

Read more about how the single-payer plan would work here

RUSH: If Trump Budget Means The End Of GOP, Why Don’t The Democrats Vote For It?

Published on May 24, 2017

Find More @ http://www.DailyRushbo.com

Shayneby Shaynebi

Demtards are habitual whiners.
Elizabeth Velazquez

their gravy train has come to a screeching halt the hungry rats are scattering
Powder River

Trump has done more to fulfill campaign promises than most other Presidents and although a sound and fiscal budget are a sizable portion of good Government a loss of funding to regulatory agencies i.e. EPA etc would assist in the overall plan to revitalize the economy. That’s the main goal is to get the economy moving and the only way to get that is to defund the out of control agencies and role back the regulation stifling the small businesses that make up the greater portion of our economic engine.
JM Talboo

Fake Media Says Trump’s Budget Has “Deep Cuts” In It But That’s Not True! (REACTION) – LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Budget Is ‘A DREAM COME TRUE’ – Trump Mafia: The FIRST TRUMP BUDGET is gonna annihilate the DEMOCRAT WORLD – Mnuchin Comments On Trump’s “Historic” Budget Proposal: “It Will Prevent Taxpayer Bailouts”: http://trumpisright.blogspot.com/2017/05/limbaugh-trumps-budget-is-dream-come.html
scrumsey

Because they cannot vote to stop paying off their government worker and welfare base.
Paul Squires

Gotta start somewhere

Cost of universal health care in California — bigger than state’s budget…

Screenshot 2017-05-23 11.53.29

By Angela Hart

The price tag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.

California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

“Health care spending is growing faster than the overall economy … yet we do not have better health outcomes and we cover fewer people,” Lara said at Monday’s appropriations hearing. “Given this picture of increasing costs, health care inefficiencies and the uncertainty created by Congress, it is critical that California chart our own path.”

The idea behind Senate Bill 562 is to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs and expand coverage to everyone in the state regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Instead of private insurers, state government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.

Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone, similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. They seek to rein in rising health care costs by lowering administrative expenses, reducing expensive emergency room visits, and eliminating insurance company profits and executive salaries.

In addition to covering undocumented people, Lara said the goal is to expand health access to people who, even with insurance, may skip doctor visits or stretch out medications due to high copays and deductibles.

“Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to negotiate rates and deal with insurance companies to seek reimbursement,” Lara said.

Insurance groups, health plans and Kaiser Permanente are against the bill. Industry representatives say California should focus on improving the Affordable Care Act. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.”

“A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans.

“It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Underlying the debate is uncertainty at the federal level over what President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will do with Obamacare. The House Republican bill advanced earlier this month would dismantle it by removing its foundation – the individual mandate that requires everyone to have coverage or pay a tax penalty.

Republican-led efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare is fueling political support for the bill, Atkins said at a universal health care rally this past weekend in Sacramento hosted by the California Nurses Association, a co-sponsor.

RELATED STORIES FROM THE SACRAMENTO BEE

“This is a high-ticket expense … We have to figure out how to cover everyone and work on addressing the costs in the long-term – that’s our challenge,” Atkins said. “I’m optimistic.”

The bill has to get approval on the Senate floor by June 2 to advance to the Assembly. A financing plan is underway, which could suggest diverting money employers pay for workers’ compensation insurance to a state-run coverage system.

Lara said he believes California can and should play a prominent role in improving people’s lives.

“We can do better,” he said.

Bloomberg: Obamacare 2.0 Gives Tax Relief to Clinton Voters, with Rust Belt Voters Paying More for Health Care

By Katie Mchugh

An analysis conducted by Bloomberg News found that counties who voted for President Donald Trump—particularly crucial Rust Belt states—would see “less than a third” of the tax relief that counties who voted for Hillary Clinton would under Obamacare 2.0, which would give a financial boost to the winners of globalization.

“Taxpayers in counties that backed Trump would see an annual windfall of about $6.6 billion, a Bloomberg analysis of Internal Revenue Service data shows. In counties that backed Clinton, it’d be about $21.9 billion,” Bloomberg explains, since the tax cuts in Obamacare 2.0, championed by House Speaker Paul Ryan, apply to couples earning over $250,000 and individuals earning over $200,000. Blue counties like Manhattan, filled with high-earners, would be able to avoid an additional Medicare tax under Ryan’s plan.

That’s not a surprise. Clinton’s support came from counties where large amounts of money flowed in and out, where the “winners of globalization” clustered, as Christopher Caldwell explained in the Claremont Review of Books:

Any place that has political power becomes a choke-point through which global money streams must pass. Such places are sheltered from globalization’s storms. They tend to grow. Austin, Texas, adds tens of thousands of residents a year, and is now the country’s 11th-largest city. The four richest counties in the United States are all in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Resources are sucked from almost everywhere into political capitals and a few high-tech centers and university towns allied with them, where ambitious people settle and constitute a class. The Democratic Party is the party of that class, the class of the winners of globalization.

There are now just three regions of the country in which Democrats dominate—New England, California, and the Pacific Northwest. Otherwise, the party’s support comes from the archipelago of powerful New Economy cities it controls. Washington, D.C., with its 93-to-4 partisan breakdown, is not that unusual. Hillary Clinton won Cambridge, Massachusetts, by 89 to 6 and San Francisco by 86 to 9. Here, where the future of the country is mapped out, the “rest” of the country has become invisible, indecipherable, foreign.

Trump’s sprawling base of support spans across the country: The losers of globalization. As Michael Patrick Leahy reported at Breitbart News shortly after the election: Donald Trump won an overwhelming 7.5 million popular vote victory in 3,084 of the country’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents in America’s heartland… Hillary Clinton, in contrast, had an 8.2 million vote margin in a narrow band of 52 coastal counties and five ‘county equivalent’ cities stretching from San Diego to Seattle on the West Coast and Northern Virginia to Boston on the East Coast.”

And, Obamacare 2.0 wouldn’t let many Trump voters to keep more of their money. Earlier, the Washington Post reported that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will see their tax credits decrease under Obamacare 2.0: “If you’re a 40-year-old making $75,000 a year, you’re going to get a 75 percent or higher increase to your tax credits—a beneficial situation for you. If, however, you’re a 60-year-old making $30,000 a year, you’re going to see a reduction in those tax credits (unless you live in Upstate New York or Massachusetts or parts of central Texas).”

The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that Obamacare 2.0 could cause up to 24 million to lose their health insurance plans by 2026.

Obamacare 2.0 also includes an arbitrary “continuous coverage” provision that inflicts a year-long, 30 percent increase as a penalty on those who go without insurance for more than 63 days. That will take money from middle class voters and put it in the hands of insurance companies. Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz sparked an uproar after he called this wealth transfer “an investment” that voters should make over buying a new iPhone.

Massive wealth disparities and concentrated wealth at the top of society have led to growing political unrest, said Fox News host Tucker Carlson earlier this week.

“But the overview here is that all the wealth, basically, in the last 10 years, has stuck to the top end. That’s one of the reasons we’ve had all the political turmoil, as you know,” Carlson said. “And so, kind of a hard sell to say ‘Yeah, we’re gonna repeal Obamacare, but we’re gonna send more money to the people who’ve already gotten the richest over the last 10 years.’ I mean, that’s what this does, no? I’m not a leftist, it’s just—that’s true.”

“I’m not that concerned about it,” Ryan said. Ryan may not be interested in political upheaval, but it’s interested in him. Passing Obamacare—and the stimulus package—led to the Tea Party revolt in 2010. Enormous Obamacare premium increases revealed in October hurt Clinton’s campaign. Trump is more popular than Ryan in Ryan’s congressional district, while Obamacare 2.0 is unpopular: Only 37 percent support it, while 46 percent oppose it. The rumblings against the bill could cost Ryan his Speakership, or even his Congressional seat while handing power to Democrats.

Still, some voters feel ambivalent towards the tax cuts in Obamacare 2.0 and still support Trump.

“It pisses me off, but my wife pisses me off, too, and we’re still married,” one Trump supporter told Bloomberg.

Trump cuts US debt by $12bn in his first month in office, accuses media of ‘not reporting’ it

The US President Donald Trump has tweeted that he managed to decrease the US total public debt by US$ 12 billion during his first month in office while the former President Barack Obama increased it by US$200 billion over the same period.

*

Trump has also accused the media of turning the blind eye to this fact.

“The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo,” he said in his Twitter post.

captureHe then added that he has “great optimism for future of the US business and jobs” and promised “big tax and regulation cuts.”

capture

The figures presented by Trump coincide with the data issued by the US Treasury Department, according to which, on January 20th, the day of Trump’s inauguration, the overall US debt stood at $19,947 billion. On February 21st, a month later, the total US debt load amounted to $19,935 billion.

Moreover, between February 22 and February 23, the US debt fell by further $ 22 billion from $ 19,935 billion to $ 19,913 billion.

The US public debt really grew by more than US$ 200 billion from US$ 10,626 billion to US$ 10,838 billion in Obama’s first month in office, according to the US Treasury data.

According to the website USdebtclock.org, which tracks how much the US debt grows in real time, the debt had grown by $ 9 trillion or by 86 percent from $ 10.7 trillion to $ 19.6 trillion during Obama’s two terms in office, hitting a record high.

*

The largest budget item is Medicare/Medicaid which has seen over $1.1 trillion added to US debt. Social Security accounted for $900 billion, while $585 billion was spent on defense and war.

However, the New York Times reported in 2009 that Obama banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. This decision led to a situation, in which the spending seemed to grow to a larger degree previously.

Trump’s statements come just a day after the Council on Foreign Relations predicted that “Trump’s policies would be likely to significantly widen the budget deficit.”

In November 2016, after the US elections, the Tax Policy Center (TPC) also said that the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion n ten years and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.

READ MORE:Trump tax plan helps ultra wealthy, businesses more than middle class, hurts single parents

Trump vowed to reduce the US debt and to eliminate deficit spending during his presidential campaign. On Wednesday, he once again addressed this issue and pledged to make Washington stop wasting taxpayers’ money.

capture

“The finances of our country are a mess, but we’re going to clean them up,” the president said, adding that “we won’t let your money be wasted anymore.”

“We must do a lot more with less,” he said.