President Trump vs. his enemies

Mostly I ignore ad hominem attacks on me and other conservatives. They are intended to deflect the really destructive forces the Democrats have put in play as they prepare for their own downfall from the extreme leftists in their party. But I do have some questions for them.

1) When has President Trump ever led an enthusiastic crowd of Republicans at a rally or convention in a chant to boo God? Why is "Build that wall," or "lock her up," so much more offensive to you Democrats than rejecting and insulting your own Creator?

When has President Trump ever led a blood thirsty segment of his party in an effort to dismember thousands of late term unborn babies, the smallest and weakest among us, all for a peculiar lie that this empowers women?

When has President Trump ever presided over the destruction of a personal product like health insurance to replace it by one designed by bureaucrats and academics?

When has he mandated a fine or prison for not buying a government created product that benefits hand picked companies with millions of new customers?

When has he asked the American people to pay higher taxes for politicians and bureaucrats to reward their favorite donors and supporters in the arts, education, corporations, and the abortion industry?

When has this president told minorities that because of past wrongs they are victims and need to be dependent on the government as payback for sins of the past?

When has he told certain diverse and inclusive groups they can't accomplish anything without his help or without state and federal aid .

When has he insulted half of all Americans with name calling like racist, homophobe, terrorist or deplorable?

When has the President asked that you trust him for FORTY YEARS with the power to influence and control your lives through taxes, wars, red tape and regulations, international agreements and secret negotiations with foreign powers like China?

When has he pretended he could control the climate if you just gave him enough power and money?

When has President Trump given foreign workers priority and safety net benefits and free education over American workers?

When has the President ever told you America was never great, and it's such a racist, uncultured disaster that you should never teach its authentic history in school and instead need to submit to reeducation camps and classes in your universities and places of employment?

When has President Trump encouraged destroying works of art and monuments like ISIS did in Iraq beginning with obscure local soldiers, and moving on to missionaries in California and the nation's founders in DC?

You may recall other major differences between President Trump and his opponents, including some RINOs in Congress, and spoilers in the misnamed Lincoln Project who believe they know better than the 70 million people who elected him. But instead of name calling, let's look at the facts. https://lincolnproject.us/team/ Of course, Lincoln probably would have had them imprisoned, but it's a different kind of war today to destroy and tear apart the nation.

Charitable donations by Democrat candidates

Oh yes, the tax returns are coming out.  We have a taxpayers Bill of Rights and #7 says you can’t be forced to share your information. But they are running for 2020 White House.  Bernie is a millionaire and Beto gives a few dollars for charity—probably donated his old cowboy boots or a truck to Volunteers of America and took a donation.

This has been known for years--not about Sanders specifically, but Democrats, liberals, progressives, etc. are not generous with their own money, but love to give away and transfer your wealth. Usually when they throw their hat into the ring, they up the donations (Obama’s donations soared in 2007). About 60% of the federal budget goes for safety net programs, and there are about 123 wealth transfer programs, then there are the local and state taxes. So I can see Dems say "I gave at tax time," but instead they'd rather complain that Republicans are stingy and don't care about the poor. The top 20% of earners pay 84% of the taxes, but that doesn't keep the Democrats from demanding socialism for the middle class.

Nothing helps a poor man like a job, and President Trump has certainly helped the poor.  And I’m on a pension (which doesn’t go up or down) but my own investments made more the first quarter than I ever did while working.  We shouldn’t become complacent, however.  Recessions go around about every decade.  There have been 2 since I retired in 2000.  So don’t stop being charitable just because of changes in tax laws.  That’s not why we do it.

Some people just don’t get it.

Because of lower taxes, refunds will be smaller. This seems to upset people who prefer to allow the government to use their money before filing taxes.

From the NYT article: "The result is that taxpayers may be paying less over all but still getting a bill after filing their return. That has caught many people off guard."

Proving that it is hard to underestimate the financial understanding of the average American. They paid less taxes, but are still upset

The Middle Class Yarn spun to frighten you

It's not exactly fake news, but it's misleading--the story you hear that the middle class is shrinking and so many more people are using government benefits because of the gap between the very wealthy and the "others." There are three things to consider:

1) demographics/age,

2) marriage or the lack of it, and

3) expansion of federal benefits from the poor and deserving to the middle class.

Rejoice, patriots. It's not true. The middle class is only shrinking because so many people have moved up to the next quintile! Have you ever driven to the suburban areas of Columbus (or the city where you live)--I can't believe the homes, schools, shopping centers, churches, gyms, parts, etc. And the new high rise housing in the central city for all those millennials willing to pay the apartment costs.

Also, as the boomers retire, they are now living on their pensions and investments (the very wealth Elizabeth Warren wants to go after), plus they are drawing Social Security. And guess what, a two parent household with both adults working has a much higher income than a one parent household who is most likely a woman. Two adults in a home have more time to distribute to the children to see to it they are educated and well-fed. It's amazing how many "experts" in socialist think tanks switch to "household" to show poverty rates and don't factor in $30,000 in transferred benefits like EITC, SNAP and Section 8.

We've been in 4 of the 5 quintiles in our 58 years together, as have many our age. We have 5 streams of income, as do many our age--some if they have military benefits have 6 or 7. We're certainly not suffering, but as retirees, we have less INCOME than when we were DINKs, but more WEALTH because we have lived frugally and invested or lived on one income. Warren wants to punish us for living on less when we were in our 40s.

Left of center think tanks crunch the numbers and in horror say, the sky if falling. There's a gap that wasn't there in 1979. We need a more "progressive" system--higher taxes. Well, duh. You mean when we lived in an upper middle class neighborhood of the 70s in a home with 1.5 bathrooms, 2 TVs, 1 phone, 1 car, 1 income, and lived month to month with 2 growing children in our home? Do you mean when we had 1 week vacation, which we spent at Mom's farm, and paid our own health insurance? Do you mean when we had a mortgage and a car payment, but no credit card or college debt (never had that because we never borrowed). Do you mean when FICA withdrawals from our 1 check ended at $22,900 and there was no Medicare tax (now is $127,200 FICA + 1.45% for Medicare)? And the personal exemption? Much higher then. Don't have the exact figure for 1979, but if the 1913 rate (year of modern income tax) of $3000 were adjusted for inflation it would be about $72,000--anyone getting that?

So what has the government done for the poor and low income with all the tax money and safety net money we've sent in the last 40 years? Well, the so-called safety net expanded so much that the middle class now qualifies for many entitlement programs meant for the poor. The middle class voter now screams if there's no COLA for Social Security (which originally was for the poor widows and orphans) and Medicare.

Now 55% of the U.S. population are receiving some sort of entitlement--and it's not because we're poor, it's because we're middle class and wealthy. It's because for every election the politicians dangle an increase for the population served by Social Security, or one of our 5 health insurance programs. Government programs NEVER get smaller--they always expand, and since there are so few poor people in America, they expand into the middle class. There are people earning over $100,000 who qualify for government benefits--even Obamacare.

Play by the rules and get punished

When you receive your paycheck and look at the withholding for federal, state and sometimes city taxes, along with Social Security and Medicare, you probably don't think you're underpaying governments and want them to take more. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio believes that if you have played by what used to be called "the rules" and are making a decent living, taking care of yourself and your family and not relying on government, your taxes should be increased.

https://www.thetowntalk.com/story/opinion/columnists/2019/01/15/cal-thomas-column-cough-up-america/2573991002/

Will this tax plan actually create jobs?

You are right to be suspicious.  Look what we were told about Obamacare and saving money and keeping our doctors.  But Tax Foundation has crunched some numbers (for the Senate plan) and says yes, but it depends on your state. Stock market went crazy with the news yesterday—not sure that’s more jobs, however.  Ohio already has an unfriendly tax climate—I think we’re something like 45^th and Illinois is 46^th—not a good place to be.  Tax Foundation estimates 35,063 jobs and $2,375 after tax income in Ohio.  For Illinois 38,465 jobs and $2,701 after tax income. A lot more is involved, however.  We all know Mt. Morris jobs didn’t go to Thailand, they went to states in southern USA or to Rockford.  https://taxfoundation.org/senate-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-state-impact/

 

In this example of 9 different filers some get more than others but the only ones losing are a married couple Laura and Seth (one earner) with 2 children earning $2 million. Of the nine examples, they have the highest income.  The one who gains the most is the single guy (Jason) earning $52,000.  Of course, if single guy Jason had some children and a wife, he’d be getting EITC and the government would be paying him a bonus of about $6,000.  But only tax payers are covered in this example of 9 households, not the 49% who don’t pay any federal income tax.  https://taxfoundation.org/tax-cut-senate-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/ 

 

Democrats, of course, will point out the gap between $52,000 and $2,000,000 not the change in what each household pays.

 

 

Shouldn't churches be taxed, she asked?

Emanuel Lutheran Church, founded by Swedish Evangelical Lutherans, Hartford, CT

 It wasn't really a question.  I know what she thinks.  But that's what she said. So that's what I'll answer.

Churches are mostly 501c3 and donations are tax exempt for the donor—there are millions of these and in order to change that you’d have to go after the huge violators that are fronts for political action like the Clinton Foundation or George Soros’ spidery web of groups. Until Lyndon Johnson's run for Senate, churches weren’t muzzled (it's called the Johnson Amendment to the tax code, 1954)--and probably isn't even legal, but its never gone to the Supreme Court. Just the threat of a law suit keeps pastors quiet.  If churches have a business, (selling books, running restaurants, etc.) those profits are taxable, but in the normal sense of the word, they don’t have profits. 

These days, everything is political, even marriage and gender. Do you really want churches not concerned about dirty air or lead in the water in Flint?  Should being tax exempt prevent a pastor from preaching about prison reform, or the condition of the local schools, or the merger of a local hospital or chaos on the school board, corruption on city council or child pornography, or trafficking in persons or marriage or abortion? Some local, state or federal politician or political party has a stake in it for personal gain, I guarantee. 

I vote at a Catholic church; our Lutheran church is also a polling place. In our old neighborhood it was at an Episcopal Church. Can you imagine the scramble for spaces if all churches didn’t donate space for voting, or food pantries? They also sponsor Scouting and Boys and Girls clubs and AA, blood drives, and art and music events (non-religious) as well as literacy classes. Our church has a huge Muslim and Hispanic population for ESL. Want to stop that? (Actually, proselytizing is forbidden due to government rules because some Vista volunteers are employed.) 

The tradition of not taxing churches predates our country's establishment because religion isn’t just what happens in the building or your personal prayer closet, but what believers take into the community. In the Middle Ages, Kings and monarchs didn’t take care of the poor, or educate them, or run the hospitals, the churches did that (still do). However, our country was settled by people fleeing a state controlled church, so our first amendment is written to prevent the state from interfering with churches, although some are confused about that.

When you hear the phrase, “I’m spiritual, but not religious,” think of the misunderstanding it represents (usually heard from lapsed Christians). That was not Jesus’ command. He established communion, baptism, a hierarchy for service, honored his mother, performed his first miracle at a wedding, preached to large gatherings, observed many Jewish laws and traditions and sent missionaries, etc. That’s being religious. 
 

Black churches particularly are very active politically. And as far as I know, no government entity has removed any politician campaigning from their pulpits. Barack Obama created his political career speaking in black churches in the Chicago area—learned his speaking style there (he didn’t become a Christian until after college), because he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia and wasn't familiar with the cadence or how to sound "black."

I personally believe (and it’s not a popular belief) churches should “donate” the real estate tax value of their land because in many small communities that have mega churches, it removes huge swaths from the tax rolls. Also, some churches have bought up old, decaying sections of malls, which cleans up the area and reduces crime, but also removes property from tax rolls. And from the obvious wealth of some TV preachers’ lifestyle (Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer for instance), I believe someone needs to keep a closer eye on the books, not for tax purposes, but for their own souls and credibility.

The Rolling Stones rolled into Columbus Saturday

We were at an event yesterday enjoying great food in a party tent, when a woman I didn't know from Worthington told me she could hear the Rolling Stones at Ohio Stadium (OSU) at her home in Worthington. The Stones were tax exiles from Britain over 40 years ago--left when taxes on the rich were 83%. That's what Bernie Sanders and other Democrats want for the U.S.--only he says 90%. Let's chase away all the rich with their money for investing and buying expensive toys that will eventually come within our reach, like flat screen TVs and mobile phones (which used to be only for the rich).

College costs soar, material goodies plunge

Rolling stones

Five quintiles, four races, four pillars of success

There are five quintiles the government uses to show economic groups in the U.S. The top quintile (incomes about $94,000+) pays almost 84% of the income taxes. The quintile figure doesn't provide number of earners in a household, and most in that quintile have two  earners, which lower the quintiles may not.

There are four groups tracked--Asian households have the highest income, then white, then Hispanic, then black. There are four pillars holding up the higher and upper middle earning groups--1) marriage, 2) higher education, 3) social capital by which they contribute to their community--local clubs, politics, sports, and 4) organized religion.

There are a lot of sources to check for this information:  The CBO, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440 and Charles Murray "Coming Apart" (2012) and  The Heritage Foundation to name a few. http://blackdemographics.com/households/marriage-in-black-america/  The Wikipedia article has a good bibliography, but is about 6-7 years old.

Today is Tax Day

I was going to say this, but he already did.

"I’m probably in the minority, but as Tax Day approaches and as we analyze and compare tax burdens, I would like to personally express my sincere gratitude to: a) the 3 million Americans in the top 1% with incomes above $615,000 for shouldering almost half of the total US income tax burden with only 17% of the total income,. . ." http://www.aei.org/pu…/tax-day-approaches-lets-thank-top-20/

Don’t believe the leftist chefs cooking the economic soup with jiggered figures about the suffering middle class

“Measured in 2013 dollars, after-tax median income rose briskly from $46,998 in 1983 to $70,393 in 2008 but remained below that 2008 peak in 2011. The sizable increase before 2008 is partly because the average of all federal taxes paid by the middle fifth has almost been cut in half since 1981—from 19.2% that year to 17.7% in 1989, 16.5% in 2000, 13.6% in 2003 and 11.2% in 2011.” Because people have lost income under Obama, he wants it to look like a 40 year tradition. Nonsense.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/alan-reynolds-the-mumbo-jumbo-of-middle-class-economics-1425340903/

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes?

What is fair? What is rich? Is rich Nancy Pelosi and Ruth Bader Ginsberg who are high profile multi-millionaires? Is rich a household with a doctor and lawyer married to each other with many years of education to pay for? Fair would seem be those who earn 10% of the country's income would pay 10% of the taxes; the group who earned 20% would pay 20% of the taxes and so on. But that's not the case. According to IRS data, the top 10% of all earners -- the people making $150,000 and above -- pay 71% of all federal income tax while earning only 43% of all income. The bottom quintile because of transfers for housing, food, health, education, etc., actually pay a negative tax--less than zero according to the CBO. Is that fair; are they rich?

Transcript of Prager University

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20811.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

I hope the top 10% continues to do well—they are the ones paying most of the taxes

We have a very "progressive" income tax in the U.S.--the top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income tax. Because I am a pensioner, my income comes from investments in my state teachers' pension and my 403-b, the 15% of my salary I socked away while I worked. (I'm not eligible for Social Security--that would be "double dipping.") Now I'm with the bottom 50% who pay about 2.3%. I can only live well if Obama and other Democrats don't target investors, risk takers, entrepreneurs, and the big spenders who keep the wheels of the economy moving.

Don’t try these excuses

And now for another tax reform that will fail

I like the proposed income tax plan--removes deductions (aka loopholes). It won't fly though, because by simplifying taxes it takes away the government's power to intimidate. Democrats will vote nay on this one because there is no way to stroke favored classes and groups to get votes.

In 1893 the Congress passed an income tax and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1895. But Congress then passed the 16th amendment which was ratified by the states in 1913. Except it wasn't. This came to light when someone actually searched all state records involving ratification of the 16th amendment. In 1913 Americans were told it would only affect 1% of most of the population. It would only soak the rich. Class warfare even then. The Constitution forbids an income tax (Art. 1, Sec. 9).

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/26/pf/taxes/house-republican-tax-reform-dave-camp/

“House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp released his long-awaited and highly anticipated proposal for tax reform. The proposal [1,000 pages] promised to present the most thorough, sweeping changes to the law since the 1986 Act, and it didn’t disappoint.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2014/02/26/analysis-of-chairman-camps-proposal-for-tax-reform-part-1-individual-tax-reform/2/

Not affected yet—but just wait for all the tax increases to satisfy Obama’s desire for power

“Some TurboTax customers are mad at Intuit, maker of the popular tax-prep software, because they've finished their returns but are unable to file. Their anger is misplaced. They should blame the Internal Revenue Service, along with the 111th Congress and President Obama for enacting and signing the tax increase with which TurboTax can't yet comply. (They could also blame George W. Bush if they're in a jocose frame of mind.)

At issue is ObamaCare's new 3.8% "net investment income tax." It took effect Jan. 1, 2013, so that taxpayers are encountering it just now as they prepare their returns for last year. In effect, it applies the Medicare payroll tax to interest, dividends and capital gains.

But it doesn't apply to all such income. If your modified adjusted gross income is under $200,000 (or $250,000 for a married couple), you don't pay the tax at all. Further, if your modified AGI is above the threshold but your noninvestment income is below it, the tax is applied on the difference between your total income and the threshold.”  James Taranto, WSJ

Obama beats a dead horse named “The Gap.”

Obama, having embarrassed his administration with the tax increases and loss of insurance for millions, will once again bang the drum of income inequality to drown out the complaints, aka "the gap." But the gap for the majority who are not celebrities or wealthy millionaire politicians is caused by marriage, or the lack of it. To even it up will he tax married people more--oh wait, that is already the case, including higher prices for Obamacare than if they were single.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html

Class envy, lies, distorted statistics, fuel for anger, wagging finger--all after a very expensive holiday.  Really, it's discouraging how many Americans are blind to his methods. He can help close the gap by getting government out of the way, reducing regulations, lowering taxes, but he's done just the opposite. The stock market had an unbelievably good year—he parties with celebrity millionaires and billionaires and still gripes about the rich who finance his campaigns. Also, the country did very well under sequestration and the shut down. Economy actually improved.

Upping the minimum wage so it is more expensive for the middle class to eat at a fast food restaurant and extending unemployment benefits haven’t done anything for the low income in the past—in fact those programs worsen the situation.  And it certainly won’t close the gap between my income and the President’s.

The level playing field

Early in the morning (dawn usually) I'm on the road to a coffee shop within a mile or two of my home. This morning at the first stop light I was noticing all the service people out there long before me, delivering, stocking, cleaning, preparing, etc. and wondering about those households sleeping in receiving about $60,000 in government benefits who are NOT working. How many of these people taking care of our basic needs for food, goods and services will ever make $60,000, and why do Democrats say it's never enough? Tell me again, Mr. President, about that playing field you want to level.

                         

When the rich take legal deductions it’s called loopholes

Reducing health benefits

Avery Johnson reported today that "More companies are reducing health benefits or passing rising health care costs onto employees." (WSJ, 9-16-09, citing 2 surveys)

Isn't that a surprise? They knew they'd get either Hillarycare or Obamacare, they know they can't handle all the mandates, and the illegal, undocumented workers and their relatives, so they are passing along the costs.

How dumb are American employees? Don't they know how perks work? When I was employed at Ohio State, each year I received a benefits booklet. It showed two salary figures---what I was paid, and what it cost the university to employ me. The second figure was at least 25% higher than what I was paid--it added in the value of my vacation time, my sick leave, my health care, OSU's retirement contribution, plus all the other stuff I'd never use and didn't want--gymnasium use, tuition waivers, health care fairs, computer labs--so many I can't even remember them all. The advantage to "buying" your health care from your employer's plan is that it is one of those "tax loop holes" Obamacare will close in order to cover those 30 million. You'll probably soon be taxed for it off the top (because university employees had their own retirement system, we did pay into Medicare).