No Tax Liability For The Rich! No American Jobs Either!

I Have Just One Question To Ask America's Wealthiest Citizens & The CEOs Of Major U.S. Corporations:

Since You Guys (& Ladies) Are Obviously Receiving The Absolutely BEST Tax Breaks That Anyone Could Ever Desire, Why In The Heck Are You Continuing To Send American Jobs Overseas To Places Like India, Thailand, China, Japan, Indonesia, South America, etc., For Cheap Labor??

Inquiring Minds Demand An Answer!

NOW!!!

Decision 2012!





Super-Rich have seen their Tax Liability tumble


As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.

President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.

In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch.

The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.

In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.

About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.

"As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better," said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. "As a matter of politics, it's really, really difficult."


Sources: MSNBC, Young Turks, Youtube

Schumer & Hatch Introduce Bi-Partisan Payroll Tax, Jobs Bill...No Cheaters

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Payroll Tax Break for Jobs


With the national unemployment rate at 10 percent, and more than 15 million Americans looking for work, ideas to spur job creation are at the forefront of everyone’s minds. While we may represent different political philosophies, we recognize that high unemployment — particularly long-term unemployment — is not a liberal problem or a conservative problem; it’s a national problem that takes a huge toll on families.

The idea for some sort of jobs tax credit is percolating again, but the jobs credit that existed in the late 1970s was of limited success, and it was excruciatingly complicated. Recalling this experience, members of Congress from both parties have been lukewarm to such a credit, and the idea was dropped from the stimulus package last year.

We have an idea that is simple, straightforward and easy to explain and administer. In fact, it is so simple that the legislative text of the proposal is only a few pages long — a rarity when it comes to tax policy.

Here’s the idea: Starting immediately after enactment, any private-sector employer that hires a worker who had been unemployed for at least 60 days will not have to pay its 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on that employee for the duration of 2010. The Social Security trust fund will then be made whole with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget between now and 2015. That’s it. Simple to understand, and easy to explain.

The beauty of this proposal goes beyond its simplicity. Unlike a jobs tax credit of a specific dollar amount, this credit is “front-loaded” in that it provides an incentive for businesses to hire workers earlier in the year — because the tax benefit will be greater. A $60,000 worker hired on Feb. 1 will save a business about $3,400 in taxes, while that same worker hired on May 1 will save it about $2,500.

Unlike some versions of a payroll-tax holiday, which provide a much bigger benefit for higher-paid workers, this proposal is not biased toward either low-wage or high-wage workers. Yes, if you pay people more, you save more in taxes — but the savings as a percentage of pay remains constant. Under this plan, a business saves 6.2 percent on both a $40,000 worker and a $90,000 worker.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In the current environment, no business wants to wait until 2011 to receive a tax credit for someone it hires today. Another obvious benefit of this proposal to forgive payroll taxes is that it keeps money in a business’s pockets, since the tax is simply not collected in the first place.

In addition, because the benefit starts on the date of hiring and does not have an arbitrary cap, more businesses will want to use it. And since it is an elimination of the employer’s share of the Social Security tax for these workers — rather than a fixed or capped dollar amount — the complexities of making the incentive work with a firm’s payroll software are greatly reduced because employers will know simply to zero out the tax for these workers.

To promote long-term employment as the recovery gains steam, we would also add the following bonus: For any eligible employee kept on payroll for a continuous 52 weeks, the employer would receive an additional $1,000 credit on its 2011 tax return. (This would apply to any worker hired in 2010.)

Our two-pronged approach would be a far more efficient use of taxpayer dollars than other proposals under discussion, all of which could cost many times more with very little guaranteed improvement in unemployment.

Imagine that three million unemployed workers were to be hired this year under our plan. If they all worked an average of six months in 2010 at a salary of $50,000, and every single one stayed on payroll for 52 consecutive weeks into 2011, the gross cost of the Social Security tax cut and the additional credit would be only $7.6 billion. And that’s before we consider the offsets from income and payroll taxes paid by these workers.

There are some additional rules that would have to be put in place. For example, eligible workers would have to be hired for a minimum of 30 hours per week, and workers who are family members of the employer would not be eligible. The payroll tax reduction would be for private-sector jobs only; new jobs that are created by tax dollars in the first place would not be eligible. And any employer with a lower total payroll in 2010 than it had in 2009 would have to forfeit the benefit — businesses shouldn’t be allowed to shed jobs and still receive a tax benefit.

We urge Congress and President Obama to consider this idea to help jumpstart hiring and turn our focus back on jobs.

Charles E. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York. Orrin G. Hatch is a Republican senator from Utah.



View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Google Maps

Obama Vows To Crackdown On Corporate Tax Cheats

"In a time of great need, when our families and our nation are finding it necessary to tighten our belts, and be more responsible with how we spend our money, we can’t afford to waste taxpayer dollars. And we especially can’t afford to let companies game the system."









N.C. Tax Negotiations Yield $427 million, End Business Disputes


N.C. Tax Collectors brought in a Christmas bonus of $427million for the state in December.

That's how much the N.C. Department of Revenue recouped through a program aimed at settling tax disputes with corporations and businesses. The agency estimated it could bring in $150 million when it started the program in August but ended up with an extra $277 million beyond what was factored into the state budget.

"It couldn't have come at a better time," Revenue Secretary Ken Lay said.

The bonus collections will more than wipe out what was a shortfall of $110million at the end of November, compared to projections.

But the good news may not linger. Barry Boardman, the legislature's chief economist, said revenues in December still appear to fall behind what was budgeted.

"I'm not seeing any big turn toward the positive," Boardman said.

The Revenue Department last summer started the corporate tax resolution program. It included waiving penalties for those who settled and 400 corporate taxpayers who were disputing their tax bills. Of those, 300 tried the program, and 236 cases were settled by Dec. 15. Some cases were new; some covered more than a decade.

"We kind of exceeded our wildest dreams," said Linda Millsaps, the department's chief operating officer.

The agency targeted businesses whose disputes involved the state franchise tax, tax reporting for multiple components of the same company and credit card companies contesting how much of their operation was in North Carolina.

Officials said they could not name the corporations involved because state law prohibits departmental disclosure of taxpayer information. Those that chose not to participate remain in the normal dispute resolution process. .

Lay described the negotiations as a business-to-business dialogue in which each side offered its view of the tax debt and the evidence to back it up. A few companies got a tax refund.

The credit card company disputes involved whether the companies maintained enough of a presence in North Carolina to pay state tax, such as offering a credit card in the name of a North Carolina company. Some cases involved the franchise tax, a tax on what a company is worth as opposed to what it makes, and what should be counted toward that value.

Other cases centered on "combined reporting," and whether a company's various appendages can pay taxes separately or whether it has to file as one corporation. Wal-Mart is among the companies that have fought North Carolina in the courts over combined reporting. Officials would not say whether Wal-Mart was among those who settled.

The department did not start out with a grand total of what it thought the companies should pay and bargained down to the $427 million, Lay said. The discussions focused on the method of tax that was in dispute instead of the dollar figure - the rules of the game, rather than the points.

An incentive for the companies was that they didn't just settle a money dispute, they reached an agreement on the guidelines for paying future taxes. The Revenue Department doesn't have to expend the resources to fight legal battles over dozens of tax bills.

"The corporations win," Lay said, "and we win."

Individual taxpayers who don't have a corporation's bullpen of lawyers may wonder why they don't get a chance to settle quarrels over their tax bills.

They do, Lay and Millsaps said. The agency operates several programs that offer individuals the opportunity to settle their tax disputes. The programs typically require that the applicants have a history of paying their taxes.

"I don't know that they're doing anything different (for businesses)," said Elaine Mejia, director of the N.C. Budget & Tax Center, which advocates on behalf of low income families.

Lay said individual taxpayers should not feel they have been "left out in the cold."


View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, WRAL, wraMcClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Google Maps