Posted on

Tax Revenues Hit Record for First Half of FY 2014

Tax Revenues_0

Tax Revenues Hit Record for First Half of FY 2014
April 15, 2014 – 2:49 PM
By Ali Meyer

( — Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,320,793,000,000 in the first half of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $413,264,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for March.

Each month, the Treasury publishes the government’s “total receipts,” including all revenue from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), unemployment insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and “miscellaneous receipts.”

Posted on

Obamanomics: if you have money, the democrats want it.


Obamanomics: if you have money, the democrats want it.

In Case You Didn’t Notice
Happy New Year America
Here is what happened on January 1st 2014:
Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%
Estate tax went from 0% to 55%
Remember this fact: if you have money, the democrats want it.
These taxes were all passed with Democrat votes only no Republicans voted for these taxes!
These taxes were all passed under the affordable care act, aka Obamacare.
If you think that it is important that everyone in the U.S. should know this, please pass this on to everyone you know.
Wake up America !

Posted on

Pondering the complexity of the tax code on Tax Day


Pondering the complexity of the tax code on Tax Day

As you finalize this year’s tax returns, I hope you realize you are not the only one feeling frustrated. In fact, Albert Einstein once quipped that “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” Interestingly, this wasn’t always the case.

In 1913, the tax code was a far more manageable 400 pages. When Einstein passed away in 1955, the U.S. tax code had grown to about 14,000 pages — 10 times as long as the novel “War and Peace.”

Today, now eclipsing 74,000 pages, the code is more than five times as large as it was in Einstein’s time. For those of you doing the math that means since its adoption in 1913, policymakers have added an average of two new pages to the code every day for the last 100 years.

Besides causing a headache for you, your loved ones and your neighbors, the complicated tax code is a colossal drag on our nation’s economy. According to a 2013 report published by Mercatus Center scholar Jason Fichtner, “Americans spent more than 6 billion hours complying with the tax code in 2011.” He writes, “The compliance burden results in estimates of foregone economic growth from $148 billion to $609 billion annually.”

A simpler, fairer and flatter tax structure is the solution to this problem. It is time for us to simplify every Americans’ tax filing, saving time and hard-earned money, and creating much-needed certainty for job creators and small business owners.

Before the House Ways and Means Committee last April, Sam Griffith, president and chief executive officer of National Jet Co., said “the current tax code is a maze of mismatched provisions which provide disincentives to grow our businesses and hire new employees.” The 2013 Small Business Survey compiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has found that eight out of 10 small businesses support reforming the tax code.

State tax policy is a good, small-scale example of what can happen on the federal level. The governors of Texas, Wisconsin and Indiana, for example, have openly and actively recruited out-of-state businesses to relocate and enjoy their states’ lower taxes and less burdensome regulations. It’s time for the federal government to follow suit.

Just like the states near Wisconsin, Texas, and Indiana, the United States loses business to other countries because of our high, overly complex tax code. But, rather than working to enact across-the-board reform, our policymakers just insert exemptions or “carve-outs” for politically favored businesses.

These tax carve-outs are unfair to Main Street coffee shops, florists, local factories and any business that doesn’t get the same kind of treatment. As we know, when the government picks winners and losers, we end up with stories like that of Flabeg Solar U.S. Corp. — the failed solar energy company that cost the American taxpayers more than $10 million.

Americans want to be treated fairly and they want to earn a living to support their families. The tax code is crying out for significant, substantive reform. Meaningful, structural reform will free up Americans’ time and money so they can put it into greater creativity and productivity.

With comprehensive tax reform, we have a chance to reignite the entrepreneurial, hardworking American spirit that is being stifled by mountains of antiquated tax policies that no one — even a world-renowned physicist — can understand.

U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett represents the 5th Congressional District of New Jersey, which includes most of Warren County.

Posted on

IRS chief: New rule on the way for tax-exempt groups

John Koskinen

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen

IRS chief: New rule on the way for tax-exempt groups

WASHINGTON – The Internal Revenue Service is prepared to rewrite a proposed rule regulating the political activities of non-profit groups to address complaints from the right and left that it goes too far, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said Monday.

“In all likelihood we will re-propose a redefined rule and ask for more public comment,” Koskinen told USA TODAY’s Capital Download. It’s a process he predicts will take “until the end of the year and beyond” to complete. The proposed regulation of groups known as 501(c)(4)s drew a record 150,000 comments before the deadline in late February.

He said the new rule would take into account backlash from conservative Tea Party groups as well as some liberal advocacy organizations that the agency’s proposal – intended to address concerns that the tax-exempt groups were engaged in partisan warfare – would bar, even voter education and registration programs.

He was interviewed on the eve of Tax Day, the April 15 deadline for Americans to file their returns.

“I think we have to take all of that into consideration,” Koskinen told the weekly video newsmaker series. “There are very thoughtful comments and concerns, and one of the questions that has evoked a lot of comment is, once you define what political activity is, to what organizations should it apply in the 501(c) context and how much of it should be allowed? All of that is going to be very important.”

Posted on

Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office


Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.

“History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The number of proposed tax increases per year is as follows:

-79 tax increases for FY 2010

-52 tax increases for FY 2011

-47 tax increases for FY 2012

-34 tax increases for FY 2013

-137 tax increases for FY 2014

-93 tax increases for FY 2015

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with “only” 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.

In addition to the 442 tax increases in his annual budget proposals, the 20 signed into law as part of Obamacare, and the massive tobacco tax hike signed into law on the sixteenth day of his presidency, Obama has made it clear he is open to other broad-based tax increases.

During an interview with Men’s Health in 2009, when asked about the idea of national tax on soda and sugary drinks, the President said, “I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring.”

During an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood in 2010, Obama said a European-style Value-Added-Tax was “something that would be novel for the United States.”

Obama’s statement was consistent with a pattern of remarks made by Obama White House officials refusing to rule out a VAT.

“Presidents are judged by history based on what they did in power. But presidents can only enact laws when the Congress agrees,” said Norquist. “Thus a record forged by such compromise tells you what a president — limited by congress — did rather than what he wanted to do.”

Read more:
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter

Posted on

Ridgewood council members, school board trustees talk taxes


file photo Boyd Loving Village Hall

Ridgewood council members, school board trustees talk taxes

APRIL 10, 2014    LAST UPDATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014, 2:46 PM

After receiving a short presentation on next year’s preliminary school budget, members of the Village Council questioned the Board of Education (BOE) on Monday about “efficiencies” and expressed an interest in more collaboration to potentially save taxpayers money.

District officials, meanwhile, highlighted the high performance level of Ridgewood’s schools and several already-existing fiscal efficiencies, while noting that Ridgewood’s school district receives relatively little state aid in comparison to poorer districts.

The two elected bodies have collaborated in several ways in the past year. In September, the council confirmed that the district owned Heermance Place and could therefore reserve it for Ridgewood High School faculty parking. In February, the council extended a smoking ban in village parks to sidewalks outside of BOE properties (including fields and schools). Now, the council is also discussing the potential of allocating the district a police officer specifically entrusted to the schools, known as a school resource officer, or SRO.

After Monday’s budget presentation in the BOE building, some council members, all of whom but Councilman Tom Riche were present, suggested there may be future ways to increase the district’s efficiency. Last year, the council managed to present taxpayers with a flat budget increase, and is working on doing the same this year. Ridgewood’s school budget for next year, which accounts for about two thirds of residents’ property taxes, includes a 1.908 percent local tax levy increase.

– See more at:

Posted on

Reader says The taxes and mandates placed upon private enterprise make doing business in NJ uncompetitive with other states


Reader says The taxes and mandates placed upon private enterprise make doing business in NJ uncompetitive with other states

As a business owner in the private sector, let me add to it from that perspective.

The taxes and mandates placed upon private enterprise make doing business in NJ uncompetitive with other states.

The foolish Democrats that control Trenton kill the economy here every time they pass another law with the stroke of a pen.

Nobody ‘mandates’ that private enterprise make a profit (which is taxed), yet the morons who are elected from the big cities (Newark, Camden, Paterson etc) that milk the funds from the state treasury continue to pass rules that hurt businesses.

Many businesses will never expand here, and move new operations to more ‘tax friendly’/’regulation friendly’ states.

No large business would ever consider moving here.

The state is broke due to ‘obligations’ to the unions as mentioned in the previous post.
Further draining the state treasury are the billions of dollars that get flushed down the toilet in the “Abbot’ school districts (thanks to the left wing activist NJ supreme court).
It should come as no surprise that the ‘big earners’ make sure they do their ‘time’ out of state….spend 181 days per year in FLA and vote there… so NJ can no longer pick their pockets… and the rest of us will have to make up the difference in higher taxes..
Try to explain logic such as that to the Dumbocrats in Trenton… good luck.

Posted on

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


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.

Posted on

Are the Rich Leaving New Jersey?


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.