Sarah Palin can’t handle the fact that President Obama won reelection, so she is blaming the IRS for Obama’s victory. The problem with Palin’s latest outburst is that the IRS didn’t stop these conservative groups from existing. The conservative groups who were flagged by the IRS were petitioning for tax exempt status. They were trying to get out of having to pay taxes. It is a shame that they had to go through the extra hassle and paperwork because they were targeted by the IRS for review, but let’s not make too much of this.
The IRS was wrong to target these groups based on their use of certain words, but the IRS didn’t shut down the groups. They simply reviewed their applications to see if they should be given tax exempt status.
It is ironic to say the least that Sarah Palin would be whining about conservatives being targeted and harassed when Sarah Palin has spent years whining about voter fraud that doesn’t really exist. Palin supports excluding and targeting minorities to keep them from voting, but screams bloody murder at the thought of any of the shady conservative super PACs paying taxes. (Remember, Sarah Palin has a shady superPAC of her own that serves as her lifestyle slush fund, so she definitely has a dog in this fight.)
Sarah Palin is so full of hatred and envy that she is looking for any reason to delegitimize the president’s reelection. Obama couldn’t have possibly won in 2012 because he was the better candidate. In Sarah Palin’s warped mind, the president must have cheated.
Like many carbon-based lifeforms, you perhaps think that bankers are driven only by naked greed. But that is just because you don’t understand them: They actually have a deep psychological need for that money.
In a new article at the U.K. site eFinancialCareers, several bankers explain that they have legitimate reasons for needing more than one million British pounds (about $1.6 million) per year in pay — more money than most non-banking types could ever figure out how to spend. In a nutshell, it’s all about psychology. Abraham Maslow clearly should have added “crap-tons of money” when building his hierarchy of needs.
“It’s really not that unusual to find Wall Street bankers who are close to declaring themselves bankrupt,” Gary Goldstein, co-founder of U.S. search firm Whitney Partners, tells eFC’s Sarah Butcher. “Some people are really struggling.”
The entire story — the latest in a series of jaw-dropping articles from Butcher, who is becoming the City of London’s version of Bloomberg’s Max Abelson, reporting bankers saying dumb things — is required reading for anyone trying to understand the soul of the banker.
The struggles of millionaire bankers (in Butcher’s piece most of them are men) are an important factor for heartless regulators and shareholders to keep in mind as they consider putting limits on banker pay in the wake of a financial crisis that was fueled by bankers chasing higher pay. “One million” of anything — pounds, dollars or Bitcoins, sounds like a lot to us rabble, but let bankers explain to you how it’s pretty much the same as nothing, really.
For one thing, taxes will quickly whittle a seven-figure income right down to the mid-six figures, perilously close to being within sight of the middle class. Then, an ex-Goldman banker points out, with the mere $600,000 in take-home pay remaining, bankers still need to “pay the mortgages on, and maintain houses, in the Hamptons and Manhattan, to put three children through private schools costing $40k a year each, and to pay living costs.”
This is so horrible. How they must suffer.
Researchers at William & Mary and the University of California-Davis somehow convinced nearly 12,000 FreedomWorks members to take a survey exploring their ideological and policy positions in order to analyze how the attitudes of the most ardent members of the Tea Party compare to those of other non-Tea Party aligned Republicans. The results must be sobering to the establishment GOP-types like Karl Rove and Eric Cantor trying to re-brand the party as slightly right-of-sane.
First, as the authors point out, Tea Party members and supporters now constitute a majority of the current Republican Party, not a minority faction. Their study finds that two-thirds of Republican identifiers strongly support or support the Tea Party, slightly higher than the roughly half of Republicans who say they support the Tea Party in other public polling from NBC/Wall Street Journal.
Second, Tea Party supporters are much more politically active than other Republicans:
For example, in 2008 Tea Party Republicans performed 1.42 activities for the presidential and congressional tickets on average, compared with only .41 activities by non-Tea Party Republicans. In 2010, with only congressional races at the national level, Tea Party Republicans performed on average 0.68 activities versus only 0.12 by non-Tea Party Republicans. Tea Party supporters are responsible for almost all of the total campaign activity performed by party supporters on the Republican side.
Third, on every contentious issue from reducing environmental regulations and repealing Obamacare to taxes and even banning abortion, Tea Party supporters are far more right-wing than other Republicans.
President Obama’s budget would raise taxes mainly on people earning more than $200,000 a year, although earners at nearly every income level would face a somewhat higher tax burden, according to a new nonpartisan analysis.
The study by the Tax Policy Center finds that in 2015, 86 percent of the increase in taxes would be borne by people earning $200,000 or more a year. That would largely be a result of dramatically scaling back tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and establishing a minimum level of taxation for people who earn $1 million a year.
But the study also finds that some Americans of more modest backgrounds would face more taxes. Some people earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year would pay about $150 more, while some earning less than $100,000 a year would pay less than $100 in additional taxes.
The increase in taxes on middle-class earners is notable because both political parties have said that they do not want to raise taxes on people earning less than $200,000 a year. The president’s budget was released this month but is not expected to be taken up by Congress anytime soon.
I haven’t heard a word from Grover “no new taxes, EVER” Norquist on this.
Your tax-free days of online shopping are numbered. If S743, also known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, becomes law, the millions of Americans who have been able to avoid sales tax online will have to start paying it. Given the broad support shown by today’s US Senate vote, some version of it is likely to come to fruition.
The bill will compel companies having annual online sales of more than $1 million to collect sales tax on those purchases. Interstate sales have long been exempted from sales tax, but brick-and-mortar businesses have just as long complained about the edge that online businesses have since they avoid collecting taxes. A key opponent of online taxation, retail giant Amazon, recently switched sides after losing some key legal and political battles over taxation. Amazon already collects taxes on sales in nine states, including California, New York, and Texas.
Technically this wouldn’t be a new tax, since California residents who make purchases from an online company are responsible for paying those taxes. But there’s never been an efficient way to collect such taxes so it rarely happens.
The “cloture” vote on needed 60 votes to move forward, and it got 74.
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans say wealth is distributed unfairly in the United States, and a majority want the federal government to play Robin Hood to fix the problem, according to a poll released Thursday.
Only 33 percent of Americans think the current distribution of wealth in this country is fair, according to the Gallup Poll, while 59 percent say it is not. Fifty-two percent said the United States should redistribute wealth through heavy taxes on the rich, while 45 percent disagreed.
While the percent of Americans who said the current distribution of wealth is unfair is down from 68 percent in 2008, the number of Americans who favor federal redistribution is at an all-time high.
There are predictable partisan and ideological divides on the questions. Forty-seven percent of conservatives believe the distribution of wealth is fair, compared wth only 17 percent of liberals. Only 26 percent of Republicans want the government to redistribute wealth, compared with three quarters of Democrats.
The poll of 1,005 adults was conducted from April 4 to April 7. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
So let me guess, those remaining Republicans would never be so ignorant, if they are not aware, nor hypocritical if they were, to say that they are not in favor of “wealth redistribution” when, among others things, they take the mortgage interest rate deductions for their home mortgage on their Fed Income tax, they are employed at a company that provides them with a group health insurance policy whose costs that company deducts from its Fed Income taxes, or they have kids in college, etc. etc.
There is nothing less attractive than an ingrate.
Today, the President released his 2012 federal income tax returns. He and the First Lady filed their income tax returns jointly and reported adjusted gross income of $608,611. The Obamas paid $112,214 in total tax.
The President and First Lady also reported donating $150,034 – or about 24.6 percent of their adjusted gross income – to 33 different charities. The largest reported gift to charity was $103,871 to the Fisher House Foundation.
Chained CPI is on the table, the most likely scenario with this congress is that we get cuts to benefits and no revenue through taxes, and the GOP will balance the budget on the backs of seniors.
President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.77 trillion spending blueprint that seeks to achieve an elusive “grand bargain” to tame runaway deficits by raising taxes further on the wealthy and trimming popular benefit programs such as Social Security.
The president’s proposal being unveiled Wednesday includes an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade, bringing total deficit savings to $4.3 trillion, based on the administration’s calculations.