 |
| State Senator George Munoz |
State senator drops lawsuit against 2nd challenger
Straight talk on the federal budget
 |
| Paul J. Gessing |
From NMPolitics.net - by Paul J. Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation - Particularly in this political season, the tendency is for the media and politicians to ignore what then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen called, “The biggest threat we have to our national security” – our debt. After all, no one running for office wants to be seen as taking government benefits away from people. To make a dire, but complicated budget situation easier to understand, imagine a pie chart divided up into four approximately equal parts. They are: military, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and everything else. About 25 percent of that “everything else” is not spent on actual programs; rather it is spent on interest payments on the national debt. Unfortunately, the amount of spending done on these programs far exceeds tax revenues collected. This year, we are overspending by $1.3 trillion or so, or more than 36 percent of the federal budget. That $1.3 trillion must be borrowed, thus adding to the burden on future generations. Total federal spending has doubled since the end of the Clinton Administration (from $1.8 trillion back in 2000 to $3.7 trillion this year). Tax rates can be raised and lowered, but they cannot solve the problem. For starters, if the federal government simply confiscated all of the wealth of anyone in the country who earns $250,000 or more annually, we’d have about enough to bridge the deficit for one year. But, taking that wealth is a one-time operation. What do you do beyond that? Read column
The Buffett Rule Facts
Understanding the so-called Buffett Rule requires a basic realization of how businesses obtain access to capital financing and pay dividends. First, “capital” is money that has been saved for the future by human beings AFTER state and federal income taxes are paid. Combined tax rates on high INCOME in some states runs close to 50%. This means most capital is formed with what remains after about half the original income stream has already been taken away by state and federal governments. That is right, half.
Understanding the second part of the Buffett Rule story requires a grasp of the facts regarding how dividends are already taxed. Dividends to shareholders are only paid AFTER income taxes have been paid. Proponents of the so-called Buffett Rule always skip over any mentioning of the heavy taxes already paid on capital formation and on dividend income when describing the mathematics of taxing the “rich.”
Though both dividends and capital gains are derived from sources that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED ONCE, these second sets of cash flows are subjected to yes, you guessed it, a second series of state and federal income tax levies. However, because of the critical value of having after-tax capital available for future job creation, the rate of the second round of federal income taxation is capped at 15%. The second federal tax levy is also capped on dividends paid to shareholders at 15%.
When you hear politicians making speeches that specifically single out the so-called “rich,” and accuse them of not paying their “fair share,” they always skip over the all important details described above. Why? Politically it just won’t work if all the layers of taxes are explained to voters.
If you prefer facts you should know that multi-layered tax rates on dividends and capital gains are more than fair already because federal and state governments are allowed to tax these streams of income not once, but twice. Don’t kid yourself. Politicians know these facts. However, some still try to convince uninformed voters to think it is just fine to stick it to savers and investors because, well, because they are “rich.” It isn’t just fine. Pitting big government against people who are already paying taxes not once, but twice is foolish. Let’s all repeat this together. Savers and investors already pay taxes twice.
VetVoice Does Not Speak for Veterans Organizations
 |
| Jim Harbison |
These experiences gave me the deep-rooted appreciation of our environment. We need to understand that a Presidential Executive Order creating a National Monument imposes significant restrictions that will prevent our grandchildren or future generations from enjoying the same experiences.
Creating a National Monument will not bring tens of thousands of visitors, $23 million or 350 local jobs because there is nothing within the proposed Monument that will attract the number of visitors experienced by Carlsbad Caverns. If this area is so compelling, why haven’t we already been inundated with eco-tourists? Designating it a monument only imposes restrictions on areas which have been open to the public for years. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico
Posts
