Skip to main content

HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLETS

Democrats are already scrambling for your tax dollars

It's only January 2019, and the 2020 election cycle is upon us. Who can tax the most?

A headline from the Washington Times

'Over 90 percent?' Liberals eyeing White House vie for title of highest tax raiser

The story goes on to read:
Democrats eyeing bids for the White House also are competing to see who is willing to go the highest in raising taxes.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York liberal who is too young constitutionally to become president, nevertheless set a benchmark when she suggested in a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday that rates for the wealthy could top out at up to 70 percent.Julian Castro, an Obama administration Cabinet official who has announced a testing-the-waters presidential committee, quickly jumped on the bandwagon by telling ABC News that it’s time the wealthy be tapped for their “fair share.”“There was a time in this country where the top marginal tax rate was over 90 percent,” Mr. Castro said in praising Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s vision. “Even during Reagan’s era in the 1980s, it was around 50 percent.”Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, who also has formed a presidential exploratory committee, hasn’t committed to a high-water mark, but she too spoke approvingly of major rate hikes.“Look, there was a time in a very prosperous America — an America that was growing a middle class, an America in which working families were doing better generation after generation after generation — where the top marginal rate was well above 50 percent,” Ms. Warren said on CNBC in July. “Ninety percent sounds pretty shockingly high. But what I’m trying to get at is this is not about negotiating over specific numbers.”
And then from Townhall Finance:
Ocasio-Cortez’s Fiscal Plan Will Lead To Giant Tax Hikes On Middle-Class & Lower-Income Americans
You'll have to read it to believe it, because it refuses to acknowledge real-world economics from the Democrats, at least the far-left socialist variety.
Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute opines in National Review about AOC’s proposed tax hike on the rich. He starts with a very appropriate economic observation.
A common liberal retort is that the economy survived 91 percent income-tax rates under President Eisenhower and 70 percent tax rates through the 1970s. That does not mean those policies raised much revenue. Tax exclusions and high income thresholds shielded nearly everyone from these tax rates — to the degree that the richest 1 percent of earners paid lower effective income-tax rates in the 1950s than today. In 1960, only eight taxpayers paid the 91 percent rate. Overall, today’s 8.2 percent of GDP in federal income-tax revenues exceeds that of the 1950s (7.2 percent), 1960s (7.6 percent), and 1970s (7.9 percent). Those earlier decades were not a tax-the-rich utopia.
But chances are, Warren and Ocasio-Cortez won't make it even to the primaries. One can only hope. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Hidden Agenda Behind the Global Warming Hysteria

Climate change activists are not just interested in reducing carbon emissions in order to "save the planet." Their underlying desire is to overturn capitalism and replace it with socialist governments worldwide. 

Our story starts with the IPCC, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. organization. "And any settlement of the Global Warming issue by the UN would entail massive transfers of wealth from the citizens of wealthy countries to the politicians and bureaucrats of the poorer countries." (1)

In 1992, at the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Program Executive Director Maurice Strong stated, very candidly: 

"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?" (2)

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton Administration as U.S. undersecretary of state for global issues, join…

IRA Taxes: Rules to Know and Understand

Article from schwab.com


Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) can be a great way to save for retirement because of the tax benefits they can provide. If you’re eligible, you can choose a traditional IRA for an up-front tax deduction and defer paying taxes until you take withdrawals in the future. Or, if eligible, you might opt for a Roth IRA and contribute after-tax money in exchange for tax-free distributions down the road.


So, what's the catch? There are a few. If you run afoul of some of the IRS rules surrounding these accounts, the penalties can be quite stiff—all the way up to a disqualification and taxation of your entire account.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and with few exceptions, the IRS isn’t very forgiving of mistakes. Knowing the rules can help you navigate the many potential IRA tax traps you might encounter on your way to retirement.

Keep in mind that when we discuss taxes and penalties, we’re referring to those at the federal level. In most states, you will also…

Critical Financial Steps When Buying a Home

In my lifetime, I have bought six houses, and sold five. I currently live in the sixth, which was new construction, which was an adventure unlike purchasing an existing home, But the principles of buying a home are the same, whether you are purchasing a new home, or an existing home.

1. Understand why you want to buy a house
Purchasing a home is a major decision that shouldn’t be taken lightly. It’s important to define your personal and financial goals before proceeding. Think about factors such as whether you’re craving more stability, whether it makes sense financially and whether you’re prepared for the responsibility of maintaining a home.

You should explore some resources on Renting vs. Buying before you make the decision. I posted a article with a couple of good videos on this subject, and bankrate.com as an informative article here
2. Dig Into Your Credit Reports and Credit Scores Your credit score and history are the first things all lenders will look at to decide whether or …