Tag: taxes

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies regulation tax policy

How to Lower Gas Prices

Iran, gas prices, oil, spending, taxes

Gasoline prices have skyrocketed. The Iran War is to blame, but the President has not been able to bring it to an end.

Still, he has offered a small fix. A federal gas tax suspension!

In its favor, this temporary measure would offer some relief. In addition, the federal government shouldn’t be attaching an excise to fuel sales anyway. The states already burden our fuel bills with their own taxes.

As if to seize a political win, Senator Josh Hawley (R.-Mo.) declared he will introduce a bill to enact that suspension.

Cutting off a source of revenue would increase the deficit, of course. But there is a simple solution to that: spend less. For example, the fuel taxes are supposed to fund road repairs. All but two percent of U.S. roads are state roads now. During the emergency, suspend the two percent spending on repairs and let the 98 percent of spending carry on, as it does now, at the state level.

Adam N. Michel at Cato argues that the best way to spend less would not only reduce the deficit but also lower gas prices: end the Iran War. 

And not just rhetorically. 

But Michel and his Cato colleagues offer a more politic plan, too: don’t merely suspend the tax, end the tax forever and end the highway spending burden along with it. “States know what their infrastructure needs are,” he contends, “and they have the fiscal tools — gas taxes, sales taxes, user charges, debt, and privatization — to meet them without a federal middleman.” 

Before October, Congress is supposed to re-authorize the federal highway program. Don’t. Dismantle it all. 

For good.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall tax policy too much government

The New Property-Tax Revolts

property taxes, protest, revolt, taxes

Decades after a famous revolt by California homeowners led to the relief provided by Proposition 13, taxpayers acting to resist sky-high property taxes are making waves throughout the country.

Just a few of the many examples reported by The Epoch Times:

Ohio. The elderly couple who paid off the mortgage on their home long ago but cannot now afford the property taxes is one reason that people are signing a statewide petition to eliminate local property taxes. It will take about 413,000 signatures, collected by a July 1, 2026 deadline, for the measure to reach the November ballot.

Florida and Texas. Legislators in Florida and Texas hope to limit the “flexibility” that local governments enjoy in how they raise revenue.

Minnesota and North Dakota. Lawmakers are pushing a cap on property tax increases tied to inflation and population growth. Voters would have to agree to any change in the cap. Recent school-board driven increases of 8 or 9 percent would be limited to 3 or 4 percent in typical scenarios.

Montana. Lawmakers want a two-percent limit on tax hikes for “local government spending but not for schools, which consume about 55 percent of property tax revenues.” A fatal flaw? Public schools are better at bloating costs than improving education.

The author observes that 46 states and D.C. already impose some sort oflimits on local property tax increases — though “their designs and restrictiveness differ widely,” adds the Tax Foundation.

Let’s improve those designs and increase the restrictiveness ASAP.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption too much government

Gov’t Pushing Gov’t

Wisconsin, taxes, lobbying, government

Why, asks the MacIver Institute, “is the government lobbying the government?”

MacIver calls itself Wisconsin’s “free-market voice.” It is a privately funded outfit that makes the case for less government in the Badger State. It has to earn its funds from donors who can, at any moment, stop donating money.

One of the things the MacIver Institute found itself up against are other think-tanks and apparently donor-funded organizations advocating for more government in the state, for more programs, bigger programs, and more taxes to feed all the great new stuff.

And it turns out that several of these advocacy organizations are themselves funded by government! I mean, taxpayers.

I know, it’s not unheard of. It’s too common, existing in probably every state of the union.

And it is thoroughly corrupt.

The MacIver Institute identifies three outfits that receive tax money to promote more tax-funded programs: the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Towns Association and the Wisconsin League of Municipalities. These outfits promote more transportation funding and higher taxes. Comparing these outfits’ core pitch to “a swindler selling gullible buyers submerged swampland,” MacIver makes it quite clear how easily local leaders are bamboozled: “Your supervisors — at least many of them — are clueless that they are being used as patsies in a coordinated scheme by a taxpayer-funded lobbying machine, one that exists not to represent the public, but to represent government itself.”

People who want fewer government services and a smaller tax burden often wonder why government size always ratchets up, never down. Well, this is one reason: the government takes your money to give to groups that will push for more government.

Sadly, this ratchet racket is a part of government that works too well.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture subsidy too much government

Tip of the Socialism-berg 

socialism, immigration, welfare, communism, self destruction, suicidal empathy

“In 2024 alone, state Medicaid Fraud Control Units reported more than 1,151 convictions and more than $1.4 billion in civil and criminal recoveries,” writes Veronique de Rugy at Reason. “Federal enforcement recovers a tiny share of what is stolen. Fraud that goes undetected never appears in the data.”

And then she makes a claim that increasing numbers of astute observers make: “That’s only the tip of the iceberg.” She goes on to suggest that Medicare, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and “many other welfare programs” constitute a huge hunk of fraud.

The solution? “If we want less fraud,” she argues, “we need less government.”

Fraud and big government seem to go hand in hand. At least this kind of big government, which resembles the biggest kind of government imaginable. For taking wealth from many productive American citizens and giving it to a small but growing population of refugees from distant lands, that’s not necessarily fraud, I suppose, but it is something close to socialism.

We see in Venezuela just how devastating rule by thieving socialists can be. (Hugo Chavez nationalized oil industry infrastructure and then ran it into the ground.) In Minnesota and in other states of the union, we see a similar ethic. When done on a limited basis, we could call it “helping the poor,” the folks who just cannot produce what they need. That’s how transfer socialism was sold to us.

And they could say, truthfully, that’s not full socialism.

But extending the beneficiary class from our most needy friends and neighbors to the less-and-less needy, and then to waves of refugees from other countries, that’s a recipe for disaster. Like socialism when “full.”

How far should Americans go to help “others”? To our own ruin?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people tax policy

Post California Soaking

California, taxes, wealth, government

Rumors that Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos has been pushing the Post in a more commonsensical editorial direction could very well be true.

A recent Post editorial slams progressives who “think of taxation the way teenage boys think about cologne: if some is good, more must be great.”

I’m no fan of even a moderate amount of that brand of cologne. But anyway. The Post is discussing a proposed ballot measure backed by the ultra-lefty Service Employees International Union.

SEIU troops are currently collecting signatures. And before they’ve even gotten enough to post it to ballot, the people being targeted have started moving. 

Out of state.

The measure would impose a new 5 percent tax on billionaires. Some of the state’s billionaires, including Google cofounder Larry Page and Palantir cofounder Peter Thiel, aren’t willing to wait and see whether it actually reaches the ballot and passes in November. Why? The measure would apply retroactively “to those who were California residents on January 1, 2026.”

Some Democratic lawmakers are saying “good riddance,” as if it’s possible to loot billionaires who don’t wait around to be looted. Or that it’s good for state coffers to lose their billionaire entrepreneur “contributors.”

The Post says the retroactivity would open the measure to legal challenges, but that if it gets passed and survives litigation, “it’s a safe bet this won’t be a one-off. Funding ongoing expenses like health care with one-time taxes isn’t sustainable. Progressives will want to return to the well until they’ve sucked it dry.”

And no one should know better than Californians how dangerous dry wells are.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

California, taxes, wealth, government

PDF for printing

Illustrations created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption subsidy too much government

Ax Tax-Funded Tax-Grubbing

Texas, taxes, lobbying, corruption

Some people in pursuing their business or charitable projects rely only on the voluntary support of customers or patrons. Other people rely on government funding, perhaps by default because it’s “always been that way.”

Still others not only feel entitled to government funding but are quite importunate about it, going so far as to use taxpayer dollars to pay for lobbying the government for even more taxpayer dollars. 

My theory? If taxpayers weren’t so routinely robbed to fund lobbyists, fewer dollars in general would be siphoned from taxpayers’ pockets to the demanders’ pockets.

Lone Star state officials are making some progress toward ending taxpayer-funded tax-grubbing. The state attorney general, Ken Paxton, has reached an agreement with several Texas school districts guilty of taxpayer-funded campaigning against a school choice bill. They have agreed to institute safeguards to prevent themselves from doing it anymore. We’ll see.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott “has also had enough,” writes John Fund. Abbott is promoting a bill being considered in the legislature that would prevent cities, counties, and school districts from using tax dollars to hire lobbyists. Officials and teachers would still be able to talk to their representatives themselves.

“Texans are being taxed twice,” State Senator Paul Bettencourt, a supporter of the bill, explains, “once to fund local services and again to fund political lobbying they may not support.”

Yes, that’s the costly and corrupting problem all right. One that Texas is hardly alone in suffering but perhaps a ‘lone star’ in fighting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Socialist Intifada

Zohran Mamdani, New York City, socialism, communism, state planning, equality, equity, taxes

“Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?” Meet the Press host Kristen Welker asked Zohran Mamdani, the likely winner of last week’s still undecided Democratic Party mayoral primary in New York City. 

“I don’t think that we should have billionaires,” was the democratic socialist’s reply. 

So, his answer to whether they have a “right to exist” was . . . NO! 

“Because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality,” continued Mamdani, “and ultimately what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country.” 

Even equality at lower levels of wealth. By design and decree. 

But don’t worry your pretty little billionaire heads about being pilloried, prohibited, prevented from existing, because Mamdani generously offered: “I look forward to work with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fairer for all of us.”

Ah, the rest of us . . . what does it all mean for us? Hmmm, could politicians aiming to tax, exploit, and totally end any such thing as “the rich” ever miss the mark and wind up hitting us of lesser wealth? And what if billionaires’ success is intimately tied to ours?

Still, New York City’s undesirables do not end with billionaires. Zohran Mamdani sees white people. (They’re everywhere.)

Welker confronted the Democrat state rep with a racially charged statement on his website: “Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

Why bring up skin color?

The democratic socialist assured his policy is “not driven by race,” adding, “It is not to work backwards from a racial assessment of neighborhoods or our city.”

Of course, that “racial assessment” appears to be precisely what he’s working from.

Mamdani was also questioned about the slogan “globalize the intifada,” which he declined to condemn. It looks like his intifada will be against billionaires and white people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea/Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
too much government

Somebody Different, Chicago?

Chicago, taxes, spending, city government

It’s good when the latest horrific loot-and-pillage ideas of the latest horrific mayor of your city keep getting shot down. 

The people of Chicago must hope that this continues.

But it would be better to have a mayor who doesn’t make it necessary.

Chicago’s city council recently met in a special session to consider Mayor Brandon Johnson’s proposal to hike property taxes by $300 million to help balance the budget. Councilmen defeated the idea 50-0.

In pitching his plan, Johnson had said that the only alternative was major cuts to the numbers of police officers and fire fighters. There would also be fewer trash pickups, less tree trimming, more rats.

Off the table? Any reductions in public school spending. 

But, as The Wall Street Journal observes, Chicago’s city budget has grown from $11 billion in 2019 to $17 billion in 2023. Meanwhile, “the Chicago Public Schools added almost 7,000 employees while CPS enrollment declined by more than 30,000 students” — as “temporary” pandemic-era jumps in spending became permanent.

Teachers-union-backed Brandon Johnson was elected in 2023 with about 52 percent of the vote; his leftist campaign platform included proposals to hike taxes.

Johnson’s main opponent, Paul Vallas, also a Democrat but of sounder policy mind, campaigned mostly on a tough-on-crime platform. But he also made clear his opposition to the “high-tax and high-regulation environment” in which many Chicago businesses find themselves.

Turnout in Chicago’s April 2023 runoff campaign was only 35 percent.

Try again, Chicago?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
national politics & policies subsidy tax policy

Kamala Hood

Kamala Harris, crony corporations, green, taxes, spending, welfare

American politics is largely devoted to the grand task of taking from some and giving to others, a sort of Robin Hood mania that has nothing to do with giving back to taxpayers what was taken from taxpayers (as in the legend) — or doing much of anything for the poor — but, instead, to ostentatiously give to some and quietly take from as many people as possible.

Nevertheless, that giving is not always ostentatious. Sometimes it is surreptitious. 

Or at least not ballyhooed.

Kamala Harris has taken up an old Democratic Party stalking point: soak the rich! Though she tries not to mention just how much money she and her fellow Biden Administration insiders have been giving to a few big corporations.

“Despite Harris’ rhetoric of fighting for the middle class,” writes Jack Salmon at Reason, “her policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy and large corporations while leaving middle- and lower-income Americans behind. Far from soaking the rich, Harris’ legacy has been one of feeding them.”

Corporate subsidies have “exploded,” explains Mr. Salmon, going from a ten-year budget allocation of $1.2 trillion in 2021 to now surpassing $2 trillion.

Nearly doubled!

“The beneficiaries of this largesse are extremely concentrated,” Salmon notes, most of it going to “just 15 large corporations, seven of which are foreign.” Of course, a lot of this is under cover of “saving the planet” and fighting “climate change”: “Wind turbine manufacturers like General Electric, Vestas, and Siemens/Gamesa — who collectively produce 79 percent of all turbines — are among the biggest winners.”

Robbing from the few and giving to the many makes neither for good mathematics or a winning political strategy. Robbing from the many and giving to the few is what usually works. But if your appeal is to “the left,” you have to pretend to grab most from the super-rich few.

Your pals.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling national politics & policies tax policy

Trump to Ax Tip Tax

Joe Biden, taxes, tipping, student loans, buying votes, debt

When Biden panders to his lower-income supporters, he targets zeroing out their student debt and regulating credit card companies with further restrictions on their ability to charge for overdrafts and the like.

When Trump panders to his lower-income supporters, he promises to exempt tips from income taxation, as he did recently in Las Vegas.

This may be the most obvious difference between left- and right-styles in politicking to the masses, good-ol’-fashioned vote-buying or its twin: leftists forgive debts and add regulations, rightists reduce taxes.

Like me, you may, at first blanch, prefer the latter form of pandering, but Eric Boehm, at Reason, offers some reasons not to look so kindly on Trump’s pandering. First, and most obviously: “Reducing revenue without identifying offsetting spending cuts means Trump is merely promising to borrow more heavily.”

A bigger challenge comes later: “On the surface, that sounds great. But there’s already one likely unintended consequence: A lot more income will suddenly be reported as tips. Any time a government gives preferential tax treatment to one type of economic activity, you tend to get a lot more of that type of economic activity. Does that mean we’ll have an entirely tip-based economy?” The answer is a likely No.

Oddly, Mr. Boehm doesn’t address one obvious element: Tips aren’t wages and they aren’t profits. Tips are gifts. They aren’t determined by employers and they aren’t specified by employees. And gifts aren’t taxed as income like other income is.

So letting people who accept tips in the course of their labors not pay taxes on them is really, really hard to object to.

In fact, I don’t object.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts