Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts

December 4, 2016

Deplorable’s Can’t Add that Trump’s 35%Tariffs will be Pay by Consumers

You will figure a business man would know that business always pass on cost to consumers. Did he forget? Or may be it just saying good to voters who can add up :”Deplorables’

President-elect Donald Trump threatened in a series of early-morning tweets Sunday to punish American companies that move plants and jobs to other countries.

The proposal — along with Trump’s negotiation to get appliance maker Carrier to keep 800 jobs from going to Mexico — suggests the incoming president will put unprecedented pressure on U.S. companies to keep jobs in the United States.

A look at what Trump is doing and how it might work out:


Trump said he’d impose a 35 percent tax, called a tariff, on companies that close U.S. factories, cut American jobs, then relocate abroad and try to sell their products back to the United States.

“Please be forewarned prior to making a very expensive mistake,” the president-elect tweeted.


Trump would likely need congressional approval to impose tariffs on a specific company or a group of companies, says Gary Hufbauer, an expert on trade law at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He suspects that courts would block any such move if the president tried to do it himself. The president has broad authority to impose tariffs on specific categories of imported goods, but not to single out specific companies that make them, Hufbauer says.


Higher prices, most likely. Tariffs are charged at the border, and most importers likely would try to pass along as much of the higher cost as possible.

Capital Economics estimates that tariffs of 45 percent Trump has threatened to impose on Chinese imports would raise the price of those products an average 10 percent. The Peterson Institute calculates that a 2009 tax on Chinese tires cost American consumers $1.1 billion in higher tire prices — equal to more than $900,000 for every job saved in the domestic tire industry.

Tariffs can cause collateral damage, too. When the George W. Bush administration slapped tariffs on steel imports in 2002, U.S. steel makers took advantage by raising their own prices. Companies that buy steel said the higher costs meant they had to cut thousands of jobs.


October 2, 2016

Only “Little People Pay Taxes”

There's no evidence at this point that Mr Trump did anything improper. Just because it's legal, however, doesn't mean this revelation isn't potentially damaging. First, Mr Trump has staked his campaign on being a savvy businessman, and posting a financial loss so large that his tax accountant's software couldn't process the number could undermine that claim. 
Then there's the fact that Mr Trump has, over the years, condemned prominent Americans,­ including Barack Obama and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, for not paying enough taxes. Now he looks like a hypocrite. 
Hotel impresario Leona Helmsley once famously said that "only little people pay taxes" - and she was excoriated for it. Americans know the wealthy have a multitude of ways to avoid taxes. Knowing is different from seeing the cold, hard evidence, however. At the very least, this latest revelation once again puts Mr Trump on his heels in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Rudy Giuliani, a close adviser to Mr Trump, also said the Republican nominee was an “absolute genius" if he avoided federal income taxes.
"A lot of the people that are poor take advantage of loopholes and pay no taxes," the former New York mayor told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. 
"Those are loopholes also." 

Donald Trump debates with Hillary Clinton in New York, 26 SeptemberImage copyrightAFP
Image captionMrs Clinton raised the tax issue during the first debate

Mr Trump himself played down the report on Sunday. "I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes," he tweeted.
During the first presidential debate last Monday, Mrs Clinton attacked Mr Trump for not releasing his tax returns, as all previous White House candidates have done since Jimmy Carter in 1976.
The Democratic nominee suggested he was hiding "something terrible" and that he had perhaps not paid any federal income tax. He replied: "That makes me smart."
In its story, the New York Times said three pages of documents were anonymously sent last month to one of its reporters who had written about Mr Trump's finances. 
A former accountant for the property tycoon, Jack Mitnick, whose name appears as Mr Trump’s tax preparer of the filings, said the documents appeared to be authentic copies of portions of the 1995 returns, according to the newspaper. 
Mr Trump’s campaign did not directly address the authenticity of the excerpts, but the New York Times said a Trump lawyer had emailed the newspaper arguing that publication of the records was illegal.


US Tax breaks for millionaires that fail:

The U.S. tax code has long given entrepreneurs a break for taking risks and losing money.

But, in 1995, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump apparently took that idea to an entirely new level.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that Trump converted nearly a billion dollars in business losses — from failed ventures in casinos, real estate and a now-defunct regional airline — to win a free pass with the IRS with the potential to shield as much as 18 years of his personal income from taxes.

The newspaper said it anonymously received the first pages of Trump's 1995 state income tax filings in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The filings, confirmed as authentic by the accountant who prepared them, show a net loss of $915,729,293 in federal taxable income for the year. But like many of his personal, professional and political claims, the size of Trump's 1995 claim of net operating losses was off the charts.

A CNBC review of IRS tax return data found that in 1995 claims of net operating losses averaged about $98,000 per return. At $916 million, Trump’s net operating loss in 1995 was more than 9,000 times the average amount claimed that year.

The documents obtained by The New York Times, which included only bare summaries of a single year of Trump’s tax filings, shed little light on the candidate's financial holdings and business relationships.

But they sparked renewed political sparring over Trump's steadfast refusal to release a complete accounting of his tax filings. He is the first candidate since 1972 to withhold them.

The disclosure of Trump’s taxes also renewed widespread criticism of the tax code for favoring wealthy individuals at the expense of middle class households.
Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's camp was quick to seize on the issue Sunday.

  "We talk about the rigged system out there," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told NBC News on "Meet the Press." "Donald Trump embodies that."

But Trump countered that the massive tax break is evidence that his familiarity with the intricacies of the tax code make him best qualified to reform it.

Trump is hardly alone in claiming businesses losses to offset taxes owed on personal income. In 1995, according to IRS data, net operating losses showed up on 505,000 individual tax returns — for a total of $49.3 billion in losses for all taxpayers who claimed the loss.

But the IRS data also shows that Trump's claim is orders of magnitude larger than most business owners.

The average claim for individuals who had net operating losses was about $98,000. For those who ended up with adjusted gross income of $1 million or more, the average net operating loss was $615,000 — or about seven-one hundredths of 1 percent of Trump's claim.

To put that in perspective, if Trump’s 1995 tax loss claim extended the length of a football field, the average taxpayer's claim for that loss category measured less than an inch.

Trump maintained in last Monday's first presidential debate that failing to pay income taxes "makes me smart." On Sunday, Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani told "Meet the Press" that the Republican candidate was a "genius" if he avoided federal income taxes.

But Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, blasted Trump for shifting his tax burden on households further down the income ladder with less disposable income.

"What does that make the rest of us, suckers?" he said Thursday on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon."

Trump Lost $916Mil and Thus Went Tax FREE for 18 Yrs


 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump faced another headache late Saturday: A New York Times story which said that, based on a tax document it obtained, Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income — a deduction so large it would have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income taxes for 18 years.

The Trump campaign said the Times "illegally obtained" a 20-year-old document and applied a misleading spin.

"Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required," the statement said. "That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions.” 

The Trump statement did not provide specifics. Trump himself, in a tweet Sunday morning, said "I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them."
On Sunday talk shows, Trump aides stressed that carrying forward income losses on tax returns would be legal.

“Oh, for gosh sakes," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Fox News Sunday. "No apologies for complying with the law."

Another Trump surrogate, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, said Trump's return shows he is a "genius" at being a good businessman.

“He would have been a fool not to take advantage” of the tax laws, Giuliani said on ABC's This Week.

Trump's refusal to release his tax returns — as every presidential nominee has since the 1970s — has been a constant source of criticism from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and her allies.

The New York businessman says he doesn't want to release his returns because they are under audit.

In its story, the Times said it hired tax experts who reported that "rules that are especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period."

The Times added: "Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years."

The tax story surfaced as Trump delivered a speech in Pennsylvania that included scathing attacks on Clinton, on items ranging from her public record to her physical and mental health to the state of her marriage to former president Bill Clinton.

"This was a poor attempt to bamboozle people out of paying attention to the smoking gun report on his tax returns," tweeted Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon.

In its statement, the Clinton campaign said it appears that Trump got to avoid paying federal taxes at times when "millions of working families" paid up.

“He calls that 'smart," the campaign said "Now that the gig is up, why doesn't he go ahead and release his returns to show us all how 'smart' he really is?"


August 13, 2016

Clinton Releases Tax Returns Paid $3.6 Mill and $9.8 Mil to Charity

 They speak about her speaking fees but don’t tell you where it goes: Charity. Just part of the old way to highlight the questionable and make the good stay silent or make look bad. You need a thick skin to survive that and want to keep serving but she do and does.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, earned adjusted gross income of $10.6 million in 2015 and paid $3.6 million in federal income taxes, according to a tax return her campaign released Friday as it sought to draw a contrast with her Republican rival, Donald Trump.

Their income would place the Clintons well within the top 0.1 percent of earners, based on data for the 2014 tax year analyzed by a leading economist on income inequality.

The couple paid an effective tax rate of 34.2 percent in 2015 and donated 9.8 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity -- including a $1 million gift to the Clinton Family Foundation -- according to the return. The family foundation, which is separate from the better-known Clinton Foundation, listed Hillary and Bill Clinton as its only donors on its 2014 tax filing.

Friday’s release adds to eight years of returns that Hillary Clinton’s campaign made public last year. “All told, the Clintons have made their tax returns public for every year dating back to 1977,” according to a campaign news release.

In releasing the return — along with 10 years of tax information for her running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine -- Clinton’s campaign once again tried to create a contrast between her and Trump over transparency in their personal finances.

Trump’s Audit

Departing from 40 years of tradition for presidential candidates, Trump has so far refused to release any of his tax returns for public inspection. Trump has said that he’s under an audit by the Internal Revenue Service and won’t release his returns until that audit is concluded -- which may not happen before the Nov. 8 election. IRS officials have said there’s no law preventing taxpayers from releasing their returns to the public, even if they’re under audit.
Yet the Clintons’ eight-figure income, which included almost $6 million from speaking fees and consulting fees for Bill Clinton and more than $4 million in speaking fees and income from book sales for Hillary Clinton, may complicate her attempts to appeal to lower- and middle-income voters. Their income appears to place them well within the top 0.1 percent of earners, based on data gathered by economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley. Taxpayers in that group had average income of just over $6 million in 2014, according to Saez’s data.
Prior Years

The Clintons’ prior tax returns showed that from 2007 through 2014, the couple made $139.1 million -- much of it from paid speeches. The Clintons paid $43.9 million in federal taxes over those years — an average tax rate that works out to 31.6 percent.

In 2015, their return shows, they overpaid their federal taxes by more than $1 million and asked that the excess be applied to their 2016 tax bill.

Kaine and his wife, Anne Holton, paid an effective federal tax rate of 20.3 percent in 2015 on $313,441 in adjusted gross income, according to a copy of their return for the year. Over the past 10 years, the couple have donated 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity, according to the campaign’s news release.


Hillary Clinton released her tax returns on Friday, which show that she and her husband Bill Clinton earned $10.75 million in total income and paid an effective federal tax rate of 34.2 percent.

May 21, 2016

Last Time His Taxes Were Shown Trump Had Paid(0)Nothing

Image result for trump no taxes


Trump says there is nothing to show on his Income taxes and one wonders if it looks like the last time  He had paid the federal government: Nothing as in nothing paid.  
The disclosure, in a 1981 report by New Jersey gambling regulators, revealed that the wealthy Manhattan investor had for at least two years in the late 1970s taken advantage of a tax-code provision popular with developers that allowed him to report negative income.

Today, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Trump regularly denounces corporate executives for using loopholes and “false deductions to “get away with murder” when it comes to avoiding taxes.

“They make a fortune. They pay no tax,” Trump said last year on CBS. “It’s ridiculous, okay?”
He has built a political identity around his reputation as a financial whiz, even bragging about his ability to game the tax code to pay as little as possible to the government — a practice he has called the “American way.” Moreover, he has aggressively pursued tax breaks and other government supports to bolster his real estate empire. But that history threatens to collide with his efforts to woo working-class voters who resent that they often pay higher tax rates than the wealthy who benefit from special loopholes.

Trump’s personal taxes are a mystery. He has refused to release any recent returns, meaning the public cannot see how much money he makes, how much he gives to charity and how aggressively he uses deductions, shelters and other tactics to shrink his tax bill.

Trump, who said last week on ABC that his tax rate is “none of your business,” would be the first major party nominee in 40 years to not release his returns.

In an interview this week, Trump said that he has paid “substantial” taxes but declined to provide specifics.

He reiterated that he fights “very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

“One of the reasons is because the government takes your money and wastes it in the Middle East and all over the place,” he said.

Trump’s contradictory approaches have been apparent for years.

He criticized 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney for delaying the release of his returns. Romney, a former private-equity executive, had come under fire for paying a low tax rate because most of his income came from investments.

“It’s a great thing when you can show that you’ve been successful, and that you’ve made a lot of money,” Trump said at the time.

Romney eventually released returns showing that, for his 2011 taxes, he chose not to take certain deductions, bringing his tax rate more in line with that of average Americans.

Trump, early in his campaign, seemed ready to give voters a look at his tax filings.

In January, he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was ready to disclose his “very big . . . very beautiful” returns.

But as his campaign gained momentum, Trump backed away from his declaration. He first claimed that ongoing audits by the Internal Revenue Service prevent disclosure.

Then last week, he told the Associated Press that voters are not interested in seeing his tax filings and that “there’s nothing to learn from them.”

Trump’s new position has unnerved some tax experts, who see value in the tradition of transparency by presidential contenders.

“At some point, he could be the tax collector in chief. He’d supervise the IRS, making sure all of us live up to our own tax responsibilities,” said Joe Thorndike, a director at Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that specializes in tax policy. “People deserve to know . . . how a person like that plays the game.”

Trump’s stance has become an issue in the campaign.

Romney said on Facebook last week that refusing to release tax returns should be “disqualifying” for any nominee and speculated that Trump’s returns could be hiding a “bombshell of unusual size.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) weighed in this week, telling reporters that Trump will “have to make that decision himself” but that presidential candidates’ releasing their returns has “certainly been the pattern for quite some time.”
Trump’s likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, who has disclosed decades of tax returns, released a 60-second ad last week asking, “What’s Donald Trump hiding?”

“You’ve got to ask yourself: ‘Why doesn’t he want to release it?’ ” Clinton said at a New Jersey rally last week. “Yeah, well, we’re gonna find out.”

Bob McIntyre of the liberal group Citizens for Tax Justice suspects Trump’s tax returns, if made public, would undermine the political image the candidate has crafted of a brilliant businessman with what his campaign has called “tremendous cash flow.”

Trump may be worried that “he’d show very little income on his tax returns compared to his wealth claims,” McIntyre said, adding that Trump’s returns could also show that he “writes off everything he has in his life — the hairdo, the plane — as business expenses.”

Trump has repeatedly said that he would be open to sharing his returns. In 2011, he said he would release them after President Obama released his long-form birth certificate but never did after the certificate’s release. In 2014, he said he would “absolutely” release them “if I decide to run for office.” Last year, he said he would release them when “we find out the true story on Hillary’s emails.”

To back his refusal, Trump has released a letter from his tax lawyers that said his tax returns had been audited by the IRS since 2002, and that audits on the returns since 2009 were still underway.

The lawyers’ letter also said returns from 2002 to 2008 had been closed administratively by the IRS, meaning their audits had been completed. Trump said in an interview that he would still not release those returns because “they’re all linked.”

But experts say that Trump is free to release his tax records. President Richard Nixon released his returns while under audit. Nothing, including an audit, “prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information,” an IRS spokesman said.

The only window into Trump’s handling of his income taxes came during the 1981 New Jersey gambling commission report.

Trump had submitted his 1978 and 1979 returns to the regulators as part of an application for a casino license. State records summarizing the returns show that Trump claimed that his combined income during those two years was negative $3.8 million, allowing him to pay no taxes. A few years earlier, he had told the New York Times he was worth more than $200 million.

Tax analysts say it is possible that Trump pays very low income taxes, or no taxes at all, using tactics available to wealthy investors and developers, such as depreciating the value of real estate.

When asked this week whether he pays income taxes, Trump said, “I will give that to you as soon as I get my audit finished.” He added later, “But with that being said, when you’re in the real estate business, you do have certain tax advantages.”

Trump has benefited from public money by aggressively seeking large tax reductions at developments including Trump Tower.

His first major development, the Grand Hyatt Hotel in midtown Manhattan, built in partnership with Chicago’s wealthy Pritzker family, was made possible with the help of a New York City tax subsidy worth $400 million over 40 years, according to city records.

It was New York’s first-ever tax abatement for a commercial property, secured by Trump with help from his developer father’s political allies, according to “Trump: The Deals and the Downfall,” a biography on Trump’s developments by investigative reporter Wayne Barrett.

Trump has defended his use of public tax assistance to boost private projects. He said opponents of such government supports, including some conservatives, are out of touch with reality.

“The true conservative philosophy is that a thing like that shouldn’t happen. But they’re in the world of the make-believe,” Trump said in an interview. “The real world is that without certain tax abatements, you have a choice. The job could get built . . . or you don’t have to have anything. It could just go stagnant, and a town can die.”

Trump’s strategy to ease his company’s tax burden has resulted in sore feelings in some communities, where local governments rely heavily on tax receipts from large businesses.

In Ossining, N.Y., home to a Trump National Golf Club, town officials say that a tax break being sought by the company would cost their coffers more than $200,000 a year.

In seeking the reduction, Trump’s lawyers have claimed that the club is worth far less than the roughly $15 million value assessed by the city.
Trump’s lawyers have filed papers with the state claiming that the “full market value” of the property is $1.4 million. The same golf course appears on Trump’s new financial disclosure form released this week as part of his presidential campaign — valued by him at more than $50 million.
Trump lawyer Alan Garten did not respond to questions about the discrepancy.

Ossining Town Supervisor Dana Levenberg, a Democrat, expressed frustration that Trump seemed to be gaining “at other people’s loss.”

“It’s hard to look at someone who talks about their wealth frequently and think they got that successful on other people’s backs,” she said.

May 12, 2016

Turmp wont Release Taxes Until After the Elections “How Convenient!”

U.S. Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 1040 Individual Income Tax forms for the 2011 tax year are arranged for a photograph in Tiskilwa, Illinois, U.S., on Wednesday, April 4, 2012. Automatic six-month extensions for filing tax returns are available to taxpayers using the Free File link on, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said April 3. Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg

“This is the ultimate reality show—it’s the presidency of the United States,” Paul Manafort, a top adviser to Donald Trump, said on MSNBC Tuesday. Manafort’s comment was intended as both a defensive measure—a reply to those who mock Trump as a lightweight who thinks he’s still on The Apprentice—and a rebuke to President Obama, one of those who voiced the critique, sniping last week, “We are in serious times; this is a really serious job. This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show.”

But Manafort’s statement is also a useful key to explaining how Trump is approaching the general election. One of the rules of reality shows—right after not being there to make friends—is to break the rules. In an interview with the Associated Press released Wednesday morning, Trump said he will not release his tax returns before the general election in November. Here’s the AP report:

"There's nothing to learn from them," Trump told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. He also has said he doesn't believe voters are interested.
This being Trump, it’s unwise to wager much on him sticking to that if the heat gets too intense—like every other politician, Trump launches trial balloons, though his are often less subtle. But if he didn’t release the documents, it would represent a serious change in norms about what Americans can expect to know about their leader.

The habit of candidates universally releasing tax returns runs back to the 1970s. Even before then, there’d been some releases. George Romney famously released 12 years of returns ahead of the 1968 election. During the 2012 election, George’s son Mitt dragged his feet on releasing returns, earning some unflattering comparisons. At the time, Politifact investigated and found that since 1972, only seven presidential nominees had refused to release their returns: Democrat Jerry Brown (1992); Republicans Pat Buchanan and Dick Lugar (1996), Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Romney (2008), and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader (2000).

One thing sticks out about those candidates: None of them won a major-party nomination, or for that matter really came especially close. Trump, as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, is a different situation.

But Trump is a different situation for other reasons, too. He’s far wealthier than any other candidate to run for president, and he has a long history of questionable finances, and faces other allegations. His companies have declared bankruptcy four times. He’s been fined by the Federal Trade Commission for improper behavior. He incorrectly received a tax break for people making less than $500,000 per year. All of this means that people might have legitimate questions about what Trump is doing with his supposed vast sums: what he does with it, whether those things are legal, and further whether the techniques he likely uses to reduce his tax obligations (like many wealthy people) are appropriate, even when they are legal. Given Trump’s repeated attacks on companies that move their profits offshore, or hedge-fund managers who use the carried-interest loopholes, voters have a right to know whether he practices what he preaches.

It is true that candidates are all required to file a personal financial disclosure as part of post-Watergate reforms from the 1970s, but tax experts say returns offer a more complete view. Trump released a disclosure in 2015, claiming that he was worth $10 billion. But many finance experts greeted that estimate with feelings ranging from skepticism to derision. The disclosure form allows for ranges of values, so that Trump could simply say certain holdings were worth more than $50 million—and then claim the top-line value. The Wall Street Journal offered a more sober estimate of “at least $1.5 billion.”

The journalist Tim O’Brien was especially savage in mocking Trump’s rather inflated claims of value for his brand. If it seems a little personal for O’Brien, that’s understandable—and the backstory explains why it’s wise to be skeptical of Trump’s claims and push for more disclosure. In a 2005 book, O’Brien sought to determine just what Trump was really worth. He concluded that the Donald was really only worth $150 to $250 million. Trump, outraged, sued O’Brien for $5 billion for libel. (Perhaps he doth protest too much!) It didn’t work: The suit was thrown out. That doesn’t prove that O’Brien was right—it only proves that there weren’t grounds for a libel case—but the proceedings offered more reasons to doubt the face value of Trump’s claims, as O’Brien writes.

Moreover, Trump appears to already be lying about his taxes. He claims that he can’t release them now because he is being audited. Yet that claim is false: The IRS says there’s no reason a citizen can’t release returns that are under audit. If Trump stands behind the returns he signed, why not just put them out there?

As Matt Gertz says, Trump’s statement that he won’t is a provocation to the media—in saying that citizens don’t care, he’s laying down a challenge to the press to make them care, and force him to release the returns. In the past, at least, that has worked. Romney ultimately opted to release his returns, despite misgivings, after extensive pressure from the media and other politicians. Stuart Stevens, a former top Romney aide, suggested that the Commission on Presidential Debates could make release a prerequisite for participation.

Whatever the mechanism, voters deserve a chance to assess Trump’s returns before they make their choice in November. The entertainer may be running a different sort of campaign, inspired by reality TV, but that doesn’t mean give him any leeway to cut them off from the normal information about a candidate’s private life. Besides, isn’t voyeurism the real allure of reality shows anyway?

May 10, 2015

Rector Demanded A Lavish Home(Soho)He is Retiring Selling to Developer? $12mil

Trinity Church is selling this Charlton Street town house for $12 million.Photo: Helayne Seidman

“Feed the Poor, lead a life as an example of the saviour and redeemer of sin, of how he lead his life”
I figure that quote belong here on this Mother’s day. Particularly working mothers or mothers that are in social security, disabled, retired or working for low wages.
SoHo is one of the riches neighborhoods not just in New York but in the Country, with one of  the richest rectory’s so why should the spiritual leader not have the most expensive house there.? He could if I didn’t help pay for it.
When we talk New York we talk apartments. Even the wealthy live in apartments, luxurious yes ,but not houses. Most houses in Manhattan have not being constructed since the turn of the century. When the new Rector was named in 2004 He demanded this house and an allowance for his old house in Florida for well over $100,000. Which he got both, the Town house in Manhattan and the allowance for his old house for $118k. This all tax free. His old house in Florida and now when the rectory sells this house for $12million or so the tax payers of NY will get not a penny. That is the set up between the Churches’ and the Government in all levels.
I am not surprised as food stamps and other subsidies for the working poor in housing and help for those that have worked all their lives and paid the taxes now have to hear from the new government that is coming in power(GOP) that either their social security which they paid for, Medicare, which they paid for, will not have a serious cost of living increase but it might be cut, particularly medicare which will be going up for sure. Yes people have paid for medicare in their checks and when they needed. If they pay over $100 a month to see a Dr and then they are responsible for 20% of the bill. There plans now thanks to Obama care that gives them much more for that money , but it is not free sir SS or SSDI. I am not talking give aways, Im talking Social Security Disability Insurance or Retirement. There is not welfare involved there and let’s not get confused with SSI which is around $750 for those who worked but their income was so small they don’t even qualify for Regular SS which depends on wages. 
As these talks goes on in Washington it amazes me that the Church(all denominations) do not step in and say, instead of cutting to the poor, let us pay half the tax on our ‘luxury items’. This is for funding on programs that help people at the bottom of the ladder for no fault of their own. 
This is a pipe dream of mine and has such I will be surprise that they would do it on their own. One of the things we most look at after the debate on gay marriage is settled  is to look at what churches sponsored by tax payers including millions of gays are doing against some at the tax payers that supper them. We hear ministers even calling for the death penalty for gays. This does not come from crazy ministers but savvy one that need to energize their diminishing flocks with incendiary statements to put the fire under their feet on money on the plate. Churches are fear based. Imagined if people one day found out that there is not hell but the one we go through on Earth; What do you think would happen tot he churches if they could not scare people into giving?
I say put up all the bill boards, commercials and so on but:
“Don’t pay for billboards, signs, commercials, etc.,  saying how discussing gay people are and how they should die …with my money!” We seriously need to look at the fairness of this deal if we are going to go back on promises made to the working people, vets and the poor.
Going back to the Tax free Rectory story……………..
As I mentioned the rector’s royal residence is no more.
As Trinity Church sells the lavish Soho town house that the Rev. James Cooper demanded as his home when he became rector of the historic Manhattan church in 2004 he has to live somewhere, tax payer paid.
This rector retired in February and Trinity recently put the Charlton Street home on the market for $12 million.
While a Trinity spokesman in 2012 had rationalized the church’s $5.5 million purchase of the town house as a permanent rectory for future leaders of the church, Cooper’s replacement is living elsewhere.
The Rev. William Lupfer is ensconced in a 2,300-square-foot Battery Park City apartment with three terraces and riverfront views. The rent was advertised at $15,000 a month.
The apartment lacks the grandeur of Cooper’s 1827 Federal-style abode where crystal chandeliers graced the living and dining rooms and a garden-level kitchen came with a fireplace.
The master suite had a separate study, dressing room and a marble bath complete with its own refrigerator, microwave and wet bar.
Cooper, 70, and his wife, Octavia, lived in the home tax free. They have returned to Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., a community south of Jacksonville where he used to preach. They’ve owned a home there since 1990 and also own property in Maine. A man that does not do regular work happens to have done so well! 
During his tenure at Trinity, the church paid him a six-figure annual allowance for the Florida home. The allowance came to $118,675 in 2012, according to the latest available figures which put Cooper’s total compensation at $1.2 million, including his salary of $339,469.
As I mentioned Cooper headed what is considered the richest parish in the Anglican world, with real-estate assets of some $3 billion. He clashed with members of the church’s vestry, or governing board. Critics said he lavished money on plans for a luxury condo tower and a publicity campaign and veered away from Trinity’s charitable mission.
A Trinity spokesman said Lupfer and the vestry were reevaluating the church’s housing policy and that “funds realized from the sale of the former rectory will be used to support Trinity’s mission.”
Cooper will not comment.
Adam Gonzalez , Publisher. Credit for the picture and source on the particulars where taken from NYPost on line publication
On the West coast JHale in charge of FB Distribution and Moderator.

April 26, 2014

Alaska High Court Rules State Tax Law is Anti-Gay

Gayle Schuh, Julie Schmidt, gay news, Washington Blade
Gayle Schuh and Julie Schmidt won their case before the Alaska Supreme Court. (Photo courtesy ACLU)
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Friday the state acted unconstitutionally by refusing to grant same-sex couples a special property tax exemption afforded to senior citizens and disabled veterans who live with their spouse in their home.

In the 45-page decision, the court determined that the State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage’s decision to withhold the $150,000 tax exemption from same-sex couples violates equal protection rights under the Alaska State Constitution.

“Same-sex couples, who may not marry or have their marriages recognized in Alaska, cannot benefit or become eligible to benefit from the exemption program to the same extent as heterosexual couples, who are married or may marry,” the ruling states. “The exemption program therefore potentially treats same-sex couples less favorably than it treats opposite-sex couples even though the two classes are similarly situated.”
Because same-sex couples cannot legally marry in Alaska, the state prior to the ruling only allowed them an exemption for half the value of their homes.

The case, Schmidt and Schuh v. Alaska, was filed by Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska on behalf of six same-sex couples. According to the ACLU, the decision applies to all same-sex couples in the state.
One couple — Julie Vollick and Susan Bernard — jointly purchased their Eagle River home in 2004. Vollick, who retired after 20 years in the United States Air Force and has service-related disabilities, was seeking the exemption based on his veteran status.
The other couples — Julie Schmidt and Gayle Schuh, who have been together 33 years, and Fred Traber and Larry Snider, who have been together 28 years — were seeking to qualify for the benefit as senior citizens.

Schmidt, who moved with Schuh to Alaska from Illinois after they both retired from careers in education, said in a statement the court ruling validates their relationship. “Gayle and I built a home and a life here because we loved what Alaska had to offer,” Schmidt said. “It hurt that the state that we loved so much treated us like strangers. It is gratifying to have our relationship recognized.” In ruling in favor of the couples, the court affirms a decision by a lower court in Alaska granting summary judgment to all three same-sex couples who filed the lawsuit. But the Supreme Court excludes from the decision one same-sex couple, Traber and Snider. 

Traber was the sole owner of the home, but 62 so not yet a senior citizen, and Snider was found not to have an ownership interest in the home. Although attorneys for the couples argued they should be able to receive the exemption because laws based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny, the court didn’t get that far in its ruling because justices were able to determine the state’s practices were unfair based on minimum scrutiny. “Because the tax exemption program affects the couples’ economic interests, it is subject to at least minimum scrutiny,” the ruling states. “Because minimum scrutiny resolves this case, we do not need to consider the couples’ contention that we should apply heightened scrutiny.” Although there was no dissent in the ruling, Justice Daniel Winfree wrote a concurring decision in favor of the same-sex couples, saying he would have decided the case on non-constitutional grounds. Joshua Decker, executive director of the ACLU of Alaska, said the ruling affirms no one is second-class under the law — whether they be gay or straight. “Families in Alaska deserve better than a second-class system of laws for same-sex couples who are just as committed to each other as heterosexual couples,” Decker said. “Our senior citizens and veterans should not have to pay more taxes just because they happen to be gay or lesbian.” Gay couples in Alaska don’t have access to marriage in the state because Alaska voters made a ban on same-sex marriage part of its state constitution in 1998. The state is one of four in the country that doesn’t have marriage equality or pending litigation seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson attends the daily White House press briefings and is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

May 7, 2013

Why The Internet Tax is a Bad Idea

internet-taxOf all the reasons of why the internet should not be taxed is for the same reason that it should be a free medium of communications, belonging to no one not even Google. You have nations in which the network comes through the governments account and everything is control by the government.

 People sometimes panic because some bad happened to a person using the net. From kidnapping to rip offs. But those are things that we live with every day. Dangers of the times. Same as when telephones were available to everyone.  I believe in taxes for government services but not everything should be taxed. I don’t even think that food, shoes and other things should NOT be taxed. adamfoxie*
CNN gives another angle of why there should be no tax:

Editor's note: Daniel J. Mitchell is an economist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
(CNN) -- Let's assume you live in Utah, Hawaii or South Carolina, and you go to Nevada for a vacation. While in Las Vegas, you spend some money in the casinos.

Gambling is illegal in the state where you live, so should the cops in your home state be able to track your activities and arrest you for what happened in Nevada?
The answer, needless to say, is no. Or at least it should be no. Common sense tells us that state laws should only apply to things that happen inside a state's borders.

Daniel J. Mitchell
But this sensible principle is being tossed out the window by the U.S. Senate, which has approved a proposal that would give states the ability to impose their taxes on out-of-state sellers.
Many people think this is a debate about "taxing the Internet," but that's a misleading characterization.
If a merchant in your state makes an online sale to you or your neighbor, that seller will collect the sales tax levied by your state.

And if a merchant in another state makes an online sale to you or your neighbor, that seller is subject to any taxes imposed by the state where it is based.
But some governors and state legislators don't like this system because many states don't bother imposing any tax on sales to out-of-state consumers. And even if states levied taxes on sales to out-of-state consumers, what about the five states that don't have any sales tax? Wouldn't those states become "tax havens" for Internet sales?
For these reasons, some politicians fret that the Internet will put competitive pressure on them to keep their sales tax rates from getting too high.

These concerns are overblown. People generally shop online because of convenience, not tax savings. But it's also a good thing when states are forced to compete with each other.
States with no payroll income taxes, such as Nevada, Florida, Tennessee, Texas and New Hampshire, help restrain the greed of politicians in states that have punitive income tax systems, such as California, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts.

And if politicians in the high-tax states refuse to adjust their bad tax policies, then people should have the freedom to escape and earn income in other states.
The same principle applies to sales taxes. If politicians in, say, Arizona are worried that consumers will go online or travel across the border to avoid the punitive sales tax, then they should reduce their sales tax rate.

Politicians can choose to maintain uncompetitive tax systems, of course, but they also should be prepared to accept the consequences. I don't think California and Illinois should try to become the France and Greece of America, but that's something for the voters of those states to figure out for themselves.
In any event, they shouldn't have the right to force out-of-state sellers to act as deputy tax collection officials if they decide to impose bad tax policy.
But this debate isn't just about tax policy and the proper limits of state government power.

The bill still must go through the U.S. House, where the GOP is divided on the issue. If politicians in Washington approve the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, they'll not only be authorizing extraterritorial tax enforcement, they'll also be setting in motion the creation of a database that will erode privacy for consumers and create opportunities for identity theft.

This is because the legislation only can be enforced if governments set up some sort of system for tracking where consumers live, what they buy and how much it costs. With 9,600 sales tax jurisdictions in the United States (cities and counties also impose sales taxes), this is a compliance nightmare.
And it means that your personal and financial details will be collected and stored in a database that will be a magnet for criminals and hackers from all over the world.

To be blunt, a sales tax cartel is bad news for tax policy and bad news for privacy. Let's limit the power of state governments so they can only screw up things inside their own borders.

Featured Posts

Human Rights Campaign Testifies Against Judge Neil Gorsuch

LGBTQ groups have come out in strong opposition to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch as U.S. Supreme Court Justice, ar...