State of California to Cam Newton: Sorry you lost, now give us $160k in taxes for playing here

Cam Newton just lost the Super Bowl. And, unfortunately, he will have to write a check to the State of California for $159k for playing one, 3-hour game there. From Forbes: Remember when Peyton Manning paid New Jersey nearly $47,000 in taxes two years ago on his Super Bowl earnings of $46,000?…

read the rest

Adam Smith insisted that “taxes should be proportional to how much a person benefits from living in society.”

For more: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/adam-smith-public-policy-four-maxims-taxation#.vrlrs8h:QQRv

oann.com
For sugar tax supporters, 2016 may be the sweet spot

2016 could be the year of the sugar tax, as several large nations consider levies on sweetened food and drinks to battle obesity and fatten government coffers.

For years, public health advocates have called for such measures as one prong of an attack against a growing obesity epidemic that has fueled rates of heart disease, diabetes and other illnesses, in both the developed and developing worlds.

Supporters hope the taxes will raise the cost of high-calorie products and lead to a decline in consumption, in the same way that tobacco taxes have helped reduce smoking.

Opponents say taxes provide no health benefits, unfairly target certain types of product, hurt jobs and burden the poor.

Scandinavian countries have had such taxes, with varying degrees of success, for many years, and in 2012, France and Hungary joined the list, followed by Mexico in 2014.

But some public policy experts see them becoming more widespread, as nations seek to bolster their finances in an uncertain global economy and a new generation of savvy consumers is more concerned about health and less trusting of big corporations.

What would happen if each of the 20% richest Americans gave up 5% of their income?

Let’s pretend the USA has a population of 100 people. And that these 100 people have one million dollars combined.

According to USA wealth distribution data from 2007:

80 people = $875 each
15 people = $14,000 each
4 people = $72,500 each
1 person = $430,000

If the 20 people making the most money each gave 5% of their wealth to be distributed equally among the 80 people making the least amount of money:

80 people = $1,456.25 each
15 people = $13,300 each
4 people = $68,875 each
1 person= $408,500

80 people would have $581.25 more each. 80 people would hold 11.65% of the wealth instead of 7%. 20 people would hold 88.35% of the wealth instead of 94%.

Think about this.

Bernie explains how raised taxes saves families thousands in health costs

Voter: “Senator Sanders, the first thing I hear about you is you’re going to raise taxes on the middle class. I support my family on a salary of $41,000 a year. I’m wondering, if you raise my taxes, how does that help me?”

Bernie Sanders: “Thanks very much for that good question. This is what we are going to do. The United States is the only major country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people, and we end up spending far, for more per capita on health care as the people of any other country; Canada, UK, France, whatever. What we are gonna fight for is a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program which will provide comprehensive health care for your family and every family in America. So let me tell you what we do. We raise your taxes, you’re in about the middle of the economy, about 500 bucks, but you know what we’re gonna do for health care? We’re gonna reduce your health care costs by about $5,000. So you’re gonna pay a little bit more in taxes but you’re no longer gonna have to pay private health insurance premiums. Now I’ve been criticized for this, but I believe that healthcare is a right of all people; that we should not have these deductibles and co-payments; we should not be paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. And our Medicare-for-all program will guarantee comprehensive health care to all people and save middle class families thousands of dollars a year.”

Moderator: [to voter] “Does that math work for you?”

Voter: “If it saves me on health insurance premiums, I’ll gladly pay more taxes.”

4

Bernie Sanders says what no other candidate will: “We will raise taxes.”

Breaking with decades of bipartisan political convention, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Monday night reaffirmed that he would raise taxes on middle-income Americans to fund his Medicare-for-All health care plan. But Sanders claims the middle class will still save money.

taxfoundation.org
Details and Analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax Plan
Key Findings: Senator Sanders (I-VT) would enact a number of policies that would raise payroll taxes and individual income taxes, especially on high-income households. Senator Sanders’s plan would raise tax revenue by $13.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run.
Hey Bernie Sanders fans

You want the 1% to pay, what? 90% tax? For all those programs you want, let’s do the math

Say a man brings home one million dollars a year. His wife probably doesn’t work because why would you if your spouse is making that much money? You don’t need to work. If the wife does work, that’s okay, too, but for this example, let’s have the father be the only source of income. The couple has two kids and a dog. The man started in a low level job but worked his way up the ranks in twenty years, and now he’s the CEO or something up there.

Now, if you tax that man 90%, he will only take in $90,000 a year. That’s still a lot of money, don’t get me wrong, but it’s a lot different than currently, where the 1% is taxed approximately 70% already.

But, he still has to pay for his house monthly. Let’s say it’s about $5,000 a month if living in the Upper East Side of New York City. He’s already down $60,000 now.

The family is left with $30,000. He probably wants to send his children to private school in New York, right? It’s about $10,000 a year for each kid. With two kids, he’s down to $10,000 now.

He still has to pay for groceries and cell phone plans and electricity and plumbing and laundry and all those things.

But he should give to charity, too, right? Because he’s in the top 1% and that’s his humanly duty! right? With all of those bills piling up, he probably has $500 in his pocket a year. That’s more than some people, but still.

If a family of four plus one dog only has $500 a year to spend after all that, soon enough, they aren’t even going to have that. Prices will go up, he won’t have enough to donate to charity, rent could go up, his fridge breaks, his kid gets in a car crash.

He wouldn’t have enough money. Then, the one percent would shift to cover the next group of people. Those people were told–no promised that they wouldn’t be taxed, but the top one percent ran out money so someone has to cover the free education and free healthcare and whatever else free stuff you want us to have.

According to bankrate.com, if you get about $350,000 a year, you are the top one percent. I don’t know about you guys, but that’s not what I thought the top one percent was. I thought they would have more money.

You will dry the top one percent out of money. Then, everyone will have to pay for the taxes that they can’t afford because the taxes are already so high. Are you going to be happy when the top one percent only makes five bucks more than you?