Posted on

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

abominable-snowman-520169

The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

by Dan McGrath on March 31, 2014 in Extreme weather, Failed predictions, IPCC, Junk Science,Mythical Consensus, Real Science, Sea Levels

By Joseph Blast

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/03/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Posted on

Are the Rich Leaving New Jersey?

monopolyman

Are the Rich Leaving New Jersey?

 

New Jersey’s income taxes, estate taxes and property taxes are driving the wealthiest residents out of the state, a new study suggests.

 

The RegentAtlantic Capital report stated New Jersey’s high-income residents are learning to live elsewhere once they realize the amount of money they can save on taxes.

 

“New Jersey competes with other states, and not the federal government,” said David Bugen, managing partner. “The tax structure in New Jersey encourages high-income residents to move to Pennsylvania and still work in New Jersey.”

 

The report noted a high-wage earner could save $1.8 billion over 25 years by living in Pennsylvania instead of the Garden State.

 

New Jersey’s estate tax was also criticized by the report. The exemption for the tax on the deceased is $675,000 in New Jersey. No such charge exists in other locations, such as Florida.

 

“New Jersey is the most expensive state in this country in which to die,” Bugen said.

 

Unlike the majority of other states, New Jersey still prohibits residents from deducting charitable gifts on their state income tax return. Bugen suggested the state “does not encourage philanthropy,” creating another reason for an exodus of those with lots of money to spend. (Flammia/NJ101.5)

Are the Rich Leaving New Jersey? [AUDIO]

Posted on

Tax Reform at Last?

IRS 605-1

Tax Reform at Last?

Stephen Moore

February 26, 2014 at 6:48 am

Today, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R) of Michigan jumpstarts the tax reform debate. It’s about time. The tax code stables in Washington haven’t been cleaned out since 1986—more than a quarter century ago, when Ronald Reagan was President.

Since then, year after year, the tax code gets engrafted with more special interest loopholes, credits, and carve-outs. Not only is this unfair to those without lobbyists, it makes the tax code mindlessly complex—a job security program for tax lawyers and accountants.

Worse yet, back in the 1980s, the U.S. had among the lowest income tax rates on businesses in the world. Today, our small and large businesses pay among the highest rates.

Our corporate tax rate is now the highest in the industrialized world at 35 percent—because almost all other nations have slashed their business taxes to attract jobs and businesses. This high corporate rate in practice acts as a tariff on the goods and services we produce in the United States. Our analysts at Heritage find that this lowers wages of American workers. Want to give U.S. workers a raise? Cut the tax rates on businesses so they invest more here.

Camp aims to fix all of this by rewriting the tax code, and that starts with lowering tax rates across the board and eliminating loopholes.

He would shrink the current seven income tax brackets down to three: 10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent for those families with incomes above $450,000. That highest rate of 35 percent is still too high and an unnecessary nod to the class warriors on the left, but it would be an improvement on the current Obama rate of more than 40 percent.

The corporate tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 25 percent, which is at least closer to the world average. Camp would also allow companies to bring capital stored abroad back into America at a low tax rate of less than 10 percent, which will mean more investment and insourcing of jobs on these shores—as well as more revenue for the Treasury.

Camp’s plan also simplifies the tax code by allowing millions of tax filers a larger standard deduction, which means they can forgo the hassle of itemizing deductions and go straight to the EZ form. For those who do itemize deductions, many of the carve-outs will be gone—but not the mortgage or charity write-offs.

Expect the White House to lambast this plan as a “tax cut for the rich,” but the evidence from history shows that lower tax rates are usually associated with higher overall tax receipts and more taxes paid by the rich. In the 1980s after two rounds of Reagan tax rate reductions, income tax receipts doubled, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent rose as the economy expanded.

This is an important history lesson. Now,  congressional revenue estimators are using “dynamic scoring” to estimate what happens to the economy and revenues if the new plan is implemented. This yields a “growth dividend” for the economy of at least $700 billion, our sources tell us. A word of advice to Chairman Camp: Use that extra money for better treatment of capital investment or to lower tax rates still further to get even more growth.

The U.S economy has slogged along at just a little over 2 percent growth during this recovery—and last year, less than that. Imagine 4 percent growth for the next decade, and you’ve added nearly $2 trillion more in tax revenues to pay the government’s bills.

I’d prefer to see something closer to a pure flat tax with one tax rate, a postcard-sized return, and no double tax on saving and investment—much like what Steve Forbes proposed back in 1996. And there are some bad ideas buried in the Camp plan, such as a tax on the assets of big banks that received bailout funds in 2008-09. That seems more at home in the Obama redistribution budget than in a pro-growth tax reform vision.

But on balance, this is a gutsy and courageous first attempt to take on the beehive of special interests in Washington and grow the economy while making the tax system fairer and more comprehensible.

The tax system we have is absurd in the 21st century. It’s as if we were trying to operate our businesses and compete in global markets with clunky computers and an operating system built in 1985. If Republicans want to be the party of solutions, the party of growth, and the party of reform, they ought to rally behind the spirit of Mr. Camp’s initiative—and even make it bolder.

Posted on

GOVERNOR: COLORADO POT MARKET EXCEEDS TAX HOPES

pot+marijuana+colorado

GOVERNOR: COLORADO POT MARKET EXCEEDS TAX HOPES

By KRISTEN WYATT
— Feb. 19, 2014 5:50 PM EST

DENVER (AP) — Colorado’s legal marijuana market is far exceeding tax expectations, according to a budget proposal released Wednesday by Gov. John Hickenlooper that gives the first official estimate of how much the state expects to make from pot taxes.

The proposal outlines plans to spend some $99 million next fiscal year on substance abuse prevention, youth marijuana use prevention and other priorities. The money would come from a statewide 12.9 percent sales tax on recreational pot. Colorado’s total pot sales next fiscal year were estimated to be about $610 million.

Retail sales began Jan. 1 in Colorado. Sales have been strong, though exact figures for January sales won’t be made public until early next month.

The governor predicted sales and excise taxes next fiscal year would produce some $98 million, well above a $70 million annual estimate given to voters when they approved the pot taxes last year. The governor also includes taxes from medical pot, which are subject only to the statewide 2.9 percent sales tax.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/colorado-governor-reveals-pot-tax-spending-plan

Posted on

Reader says this Council instead on focusing on running this town engage in petty bickering, retaliation and furthering their own personal agendas

Ridgewood_-Village_Hall_theridgewoodblog.net_1

Reader says this Council instead on focusing on running this town engage in petty bickering, retaliation and furthering their own personal agendas

Yes the departments are all understaffed and our taxes are still obscenely high. You are correct about our current Council – they are all pushing their own pet projects without at all acknowledging that at some point taxes alone will crush the value of our homes. Who will ever buy your house if the taxes are $40,000 a year?

Mrs. Hauck wants to double the size of Valley but clearly has not considered the impact of a facility that size on the town’s neighborhoods and infrastructure. Valley pays no taxes yet their drain on Village resources will also double with this project. You think departments are understaffed now?

And how about Mr. Pucciarelli and building up the CBD? Has anyone done any math on the impact on our tax base? I’ll tell you right now they would be shouting it at every meeting if ONE PERSON thought that building apartments in town would make our taxes go down. Instead they choose to tell us that traffic will improve and only 4 new kids will enter the school system.

I’m shocked at how out to lunch this Council is in the face of such a crisis. Look at this weekend alone – Super Bowl parties at the bank and a big skating party at Graydon. Then on to having lunch with the elderly, and banning smoking outside. Maybe they should Google Stockton, CA for a glimpse into our future when they have a minute.

Oh yea, and don’t forget to put your garbage out on the curb tonight….

wine.com

Posted on

Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?

Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?
November 22, 2012 | 8:00 pm

Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, “want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: “Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.”

Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share,” they never specify what percentage of the nation’s tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.

But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it’s hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren’t already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-if-top-5-paid-40-of-taxes-what-is-their-fair-share/article/2513985#.ULIJXuTLQxE