A National Pubic Radio Network

For John, BLUF:  Sgt Mom pretty well covers the waterfront concerning National Public Radio.  It is off the rails.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

To the Great Surprise of Many…

From Chicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 18 April 2024.

Here is the lede plus two:

… It turned out that there was one genuine, for real, professional old-line journalist still working at National Public Radio.  Was being the operative word, as business reporter Uri Berliner quit, after spectacularly blowing up any lingering pretense of the publicly financed institution being an impartial and unbiased news-gathering organization, reporting on news without fear, favor or partisanship.  Frankly, anyone claiming to be the teeniest bit rightish of center and believes that load of codswallop is likely too innocent to be let out in public without a dedicated keeper.  They probably believe every word in the NY Times, as well – although as Agent K of Men in Black observed – that publication stumbles into the truth on rare occasions.

Uri Berliner’s final report may yet blow apart NPR federal funding, both that which is direct, and that which is paid to them by local affiliates for the rights to air their various news, information and entertainment features.  The new CEO for NPR, one Katherine Maher, appears to be a singularly unappealing progressive apparatchik, a neurotic child of ruling-class privilege without a single shred of a background or experience in journalism … but all the right progressive opinions.  (I swear, I’d be a better fit for that job based on a DINFOS shake-n-bake course for print and broadcast journalism, followed by twenty years as a military public affairs specialist!)  I’d also swear that Katherine Maher was another generated parody like Titania McGrath, but alas – she’s all too horribly real.

I do wonder if this might be the final straw that breaks NPR.  For all their many awards, organizational self-regard, and incestuously close connections to the Washington power structure, they have also been hemorrhaging ordinary listeners in Flyoverlandia for years now.  I’m one of those once-listeners myself.  Heck, I even worked for years at the local affiliate here in San Antonio on a part-time – on the classical music side, though.  Every time I mentioned how I came to quit listening to NPR – a fair number of commenters chimed in with similar tales of disenchantment and outright disgust.  NPR used to make at least a pretense at being even-handed, the presence of that lugubrious old talking prune, Daniel Schorr notwithstanding – or Cokie Roberts, the daughter of two (count ’em!) longtime career Democrat Party politicians, Lindy and Hale Boggs.  NPR did more than the immediate sensational bleeding and leading coverage of news, and extended features … and then … and then, they seemed to have less and less to say to anyone who wasn’t a bicoastal progressive.  For me, the point came sometime between 9-11 then the election of Obama; definitely by the time of the rise of the Tea Party.  NPR looked at the Tea Party with the horrified interest of someone discovering a dead worm in their expensive mushroom vol-au-vent appetizer, before thumbing through their golden Rolodex of experts and demanding an explanation … instead of, you know – calling up any of the local Tea Party organizations and asking them.

Yes, I know.  Venturing into the hinterland and speaking to those bitter clingers would be asking to much.  Or hiring someone like Reporter Salena Zito.

I think Mr Uri Berliner was trying to save NPR.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Who Is Being Taxed

For John, BLUF:  We need to understand our tax system, to ensure our legislators are playing fair with all of us, rich and poor.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Corporate giants pay minimal taxes, reveals ITEP study on Trump-GOP tax law’s impact

Here is the sub-headline:

ITEP's latest study exposes how the 2017 tax law has allowed major U.S. corporations to drastically reduce their tax bills, highlighting the need for urgent reform in corporate taxation.

From Nation of Change, by Reporter Ruth Milka, 1 March 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

A recent study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has unveiled that numerous large, profitable U.S. companies have substantially reduced their federal tax bills, leveraging the provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law.  This legislation, which cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, has been under scrutiny for enabling lucrative loopholes that major corporations have exploited.

The 2017 Tax Law: A Catalyst for Corporate Tax Avoidance

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, hailed by its proponents for spurring economic growth, has faced criticism for diminishing corporate contributions to public investments.  “When President [Donald] Trump and congressional Republicans slashed the statutory corporate income tax rate… their goal was to allow corporations to contribute less to the public investments and the society that makes their profits possible,” the ITEP report elucidates.

The study focused on 342 profitable companies over the first five years since the law’s enactment, revealing that 23 of these companies paid no federal taxes during this period. Notably, Kinder Morgan, NRG Energy, and T-Mobile were among those with a 0% or negative effective tax rate. The analysis further disclosed that nearly a quarter of the examined companies, including giants like Netflix, Nike, and Citigroup, paid taxes at single-digit rates or less.

I know I should be upset by corporatoins not paying their fair share.♠  The thing is, when they pay their tax it is with my money.  The corporation doesn't create money out of nothing.  They create their wealth by selling things or services.  Who pays for those products or services?  You and I pay, and the corporate tacks on a little extra for profit.  Some of that is then raked off in Government Taxes.

It would seem to me that the appropriate place to tax is in terms of the dividends of those who have invested in individual corporations  For them it is income.

In the end, it is the consumer who is underwriting any taxes being paid by corporations.  It is coming out of your pocket.

That said, perhaps we cannot disentangle taxes from the concept that corporations are people, in term of free speech.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  What is a fair share?  I hear the term, but I don't find definitions.  Do youhave a definition you could share

Taxing the Rich More

For John, BLUF:  While the Federal Government can go into debt by trillions of dolollars, Statees must balance their budgets.  Thus zCalifornia is trying to increase taxes, to send even more.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

California Politicos Proposing New ‘Wealth Tax’ for Super-Rich, ‘Exit Tax’ for Those Who Leave

Here is the sub-headline:

The state of the state is so dire…Governor Gavin Newsom is threatening to cut spending on climate change projects

From Legal Insurrectioon, by Blogger Leslie Eastman, 25 January 2023, 07:00am.

Here is the lede plus five:

Some California politicos are proposing an additional “wealth tax” on the state’s richest residents.

And while many of you will laugh at my pain, the Democrats want this tax enacted nationally…so it concerns you, too.

Assemblyman Alex Lee, a progressive Democrat from San Jose, filed legislation that would tax an extra 1.5% on Californians with a worldwide net worth of more than $1 billion starting January of 2024, and 1% for those making more than $50 million starting in 2026.

Lee’s proposal aims to tax assets such as stocks and bonds that can skyrocket in value without incurring taxes until they’re sold. He said the tax would apply to the top .1% of California earners and could generate about $22 billion.

“For far too long, we’ve allowed income inequality to deepen and fester in this state and this country while the rich get richer and the middle class shrinks behind,” Lee said Monday.

The legislation is part of a multi-state effort from progressive lawmakers across the country who say the nation’s top earners need to pay their fair share.

Having voted in California for three decades, I am embarrassed by this.  I was obviously one of those who let things spiral down to this point.  I tried to vote for limited government, but it wasn't enough.

The idea of an extra tax for the rich to fund programs strikes me as counter-productive.  All of us as Citizens shoould be invested in our government programs.  On top of that, a special tax on the rich will result in the rich infiltrating out to a new location, with fewer taxes.

This California plan is a bad idea.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Whiff

For John, BLUF:  Waving the Bloody Shirt, the author demands that the rich pay their "fair share" of taxes.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How (Not) to Tax Billionaires

Here is the sub-headline:

A plan from House Democrats targets the merely rich rather than the plutocrats, insuring that our new Gilded Age will continue.

From The New Yorker, by Colunist John Cassidy, 20 September 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Ten years after the Occupy Wall Street movement focussed attention on some of the inequities and scams of twenty-first-century capitalism, Democrats on Capitol Hill are in a position to raise taxes on the members of the 0.01 per cent, who have benefitted enormously, not just from rising inequality and the financialization of the economy but also from the covid-19 pandemic.  Will the Democrats seize this opportunity? Will they force the very richest Americans—the likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Carl Icahn—to pay their fair share, or will they confirm the suspicion of many Occupy supporters that the Party, despite talking a good game, is ultimately in hock to the plutocracy?

The political context for a potential tax hike is that the Democrats need to raise a lot of money to help pay for a big spending package aimed at strengthening the social safety net and boosting green energy—which they intend to pass using the budget-reconciliation process.  Last week, Democrats on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee released a proposal that, according to an analysis by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, would raise $2.1 trillion over ten years, while largely honoring President Joe Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans who earn less than four hundred thousand dollars a year.  (Biden’s definition of “middle class” is an elastic one.) The House proposal is a mixture of the good, the dubious, and the indefensible.
[Highlighting is Mine]

I read the whole article.  Nowhere did I find a definition of "pay their fair share".  What is someone's fair share?  Does it mean tax the better off until their take home pay is the same as a typical employee in their corporation or organization?  Is there some multiple of the minimum wage?♠

Then there is this assertion by the author:

For example, the Biden Administration proposed raising the corporate income tax from twenty-one per cent to twenty-eight per cent—still well below the thirty-five-per-cent rate that applied before 2017.  The House plan would set the top corporate rate at 26.5 per cent.

I could br wrong, but isn't this a tax on consumers?  Don't corporations pass this tax on to those who consume goods or services?  Are there CongressCritters who actually believe this is not a tax on the consumers?  A strange way of not taxing those earning below $400,000 per annum.♥  I believe this kind of proposal needs more explanation.

Mr John Cassidy talks to plutocrats, deploring the fact that they are deferring consumption, and thus avoiding taxes.  That actually seems odd.  Are the tax laws no sufficient to tax perquisites (perks)?.  Maybe that is how this should be framed.

In the mean time, I still wish to know what is a fair share.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  My own proposal is that there should be a special tax on corporations for that executive pay which is 1,000% higher than the lowest pay for the lowest paid individual, normalized to a full year's pay.  That would be $40,000 vs $40,000,000.  More of a difference would be taxed.
♥  President Biden's marker for those who should not be taxed.

More Gas Taxes

For John, BLUF:  I say tax because even if the price is driven up by a slack in supply due to Government action.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HERE WE GO:  Gas Prices Have Already Spiked Under Biden (And They Could Go Much Higher)

From Trending Politics, by Mr Chris Donaldson, 12 February 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

After four years of stable gas prices under President Donald J. Trump, Americans may have to get used to some pain at the pump.

Former Vice President Joe Biden hasn’t even been in the White House for a month and gas prices are already up a whopping 18 percent with at least one analyst predicting that they could hit $4 per gallon in the near future.

This is, of course, a tax on the poor and the Middle Class.

Will the stimulus offset this taxation?

Hat tip to my Buddy Greg.

Regards  —  Cliff

Amazon and Taxes

For John, BLUF:  In cases like this it is usually beneficial to dig a little deeper.  Tax policies are usually structured to drive certain behaviors, like corporate investment.  Put another way, taxes are not so much about raising money as they are about shaping human behavior.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why Does Amazon Pay $0 in Federal Income Taxes?

Here is the sub-headline:

There's a reason Amazon as a corporate entity usually escapes income taxes.

From FEE, by Prof Tyler Cowen, 20 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

The main reason Amazon as a corporate entity does not pay much in taxes is because the company so vigorously reinvests its profit.  The resulting expensing provisions lower their tax liabilities, in some cases down to zero or near-zero.

That is, in fact, the kind of incentive our tax system is supposed to create, and does so only imperfectly, noting that many economists have suggested moving to full expensing.

I am thinking reinvestment creates jobs, at least temporarily, as buildings are built and equipment purchased.  And later people are hired to work in those buildings, to operate that machinery.

A little bit later the article makes this point:

Amazon pays plenty in terms of payroll taxes and also state and local taxes.  Nor should you forget the taxes paid by Amazon’s employees on their wages.  Not only is that direct revenue to various levels of government, but the incidence of those taxes falls somewhat on Amazon, which now must pay higher wages to offset the tax burden faced by their employees.

I am glad there are people, like Mr Jeff Bazos, out there creating jobs.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Amazon and Local Politics

For John, BLUF:  New York State, and New York City, are special cases, but, they raise questions about where we are heading.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The only clear winner from Amazon’s New York pullout

From The Wash Post, by Columnist Megan McArdle, 15 February 2019.

Here are The Excepts at InstaPundit:

Though Amazon won’t lose much by redirecting expansion elsewhere (including adding personnel to its offices elsewhere in New York), Big Tech should be worried about the company’s experience.  Once viewed by the left as the Good Big Business, Big Tech has now been reclassified to the ranks of the rapacious monopolists.  Meanwhile, the right is also getting less tech-friendly as it perceives Big Tech taking the other side in the culture wars.  At the moment, tech has no obvious political allies.

Allies are going to be essential, because Amazon’s battles with local activists in Seattle and now New York were but the opening skirmishes in what promises to be a long war.  Activists are looking to curb tech’s economic power, with whatever political tools they have at their disposal, from the special employment taxes tried in Seattle to lobbying for federal antitrust actions.

It will all sort itself out, but maybe not by 2020.

And by then the Green New Deal (GND) will be in full swing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Amazon Flees

For John, BLUF:  When folks say "do the math" I usually do, to check their sums, which are often off.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HOW DUMB IS OCASIO-CORTEZ?

From Powerline, by John Hinderaker, 15 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

The two hottest commodities in the Democratic Party are Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Earlier this week, Omar exhibited stunning ignorance in her hostile questioning of Elliott Adams Abrams.  Similarly, Ocasio-Cortez has often displayed a surprising lack of knowledge for someone who apparently is a college graduate.  Don’t get me started on the “Green New Socialism.” But she outdid herself yesterday.

The context was Amazon’s announcement that it would not, after all, build a second corporate headquarters in Long Island City, which I understand is close to, but not within, Ocasio-Cortez’s district.  The project reportedly would have entailed 25,000 new jobs–normally considered a good thing by Congressmen.  But Ocasio-Cortez thought it was wonderful that her constituents would not have the option to compete for those jobs:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC

Anything is possible:  today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.

Here is where it goes sideways:

What’s great is that our economy, our local economy, is already growing.  So I firmly believe that if we want to take that $3 billion dollars that we were willing to give to Amazon and invest it in our local community, we can do that.

The thing is, there is no $3 Billion now free for alternative uses, like job training.  That was future tax revenue to be forgone as an incentive to Amazon to bring jobs, which would mean workers earning and spending and all that financial activity being taxed.  Those jobs will now go elsewhere.  Some other tax jurisdiction will face a reduced tax intake from the acquisition of some 25,000 new jobs.  That is, before there was nothing, but now there will be, somewhere else, 25,000 new jobs and some new tax revenue.  Somewhere other than New York City.  Maybe someplace like Boston, Massachusetts, which had made the "short list".

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Taxes Bite

For John, BLUF:  Taxes fund government, but also create social change.  In New York State, high taxes encourage people to emigrate to other states.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Cuomo announces income tax revenues have dropped by $2.3B

From The New York Post, by Reporter Carl Campanile, 4 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday that state income tax revenues plummeted by $2.3 billion since he introduced his new budget plan last month — a bombshell that will force him to curb spending.

Cuomo attributed the revenue drop in December and January largely to the new federal tax code, as well as volatility in the stock market and other uncertainties.

“That’s a $2.3 billion drop in revenues.  That’s as serious as a heart attack.  This is worse than we had anticipated,” the governor said in Albany.

“This reduction must be addressed in this year’s budget.”

The New York Governor attributed this drop in revenue, in part, to the change in Federal tax laws, which caps the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) at $10,000.

People being the way they are, when state taxes became too high, they moved.  Is Governor Cuomo surprised by this?

Of course some may be leaving New York State because it is slowly turning into 1930s Germany.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Smother the Churches

For John, BLUF:  Narrow minds that are looking for conformance rather that exploration.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Atheist Lawsuit Would Force Churches to Ask the IRS for Permission to Exist

From PJ Media, by Mr Tyler O'Neil, 26 November 2018.

Here is the lede plus Three:

An atheist group has taken direct aim at the free exercise of religion, attempting to subject churches to the rule of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), enabling the exact kind of targeting experienced by tea party groups under President Obama.  A Washington, D.C. church is fighting back, defending the central constitutional principle that religious freedom is not subject to the whims of government control.

"This is nothing more than just a naked attempt to harm churches and religion because FFRF believes that religion is bad," Erik Stanley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told PJ Media on Monday.  His organization filed a motion to intervene on behalf of New Macedonia Baptist Church in the case NonBelief Relief v. David J. Kautter.

NonBelief Relief sued Kautter, acting commissioner for the IRS, in October.  The IRS had revoked the organization's tax-exempt status after NonBelief Relief refused to file a Form-990 for the third year in a row.  The IRS requires non-profit organizations to submit the form — which documents the internal finances and efforts of the organization in question — every year, unless the organization is a church or other religious body.

It seems natural that NonBelief Relief might demand the same exemption given to churches should also apply to them, but that's not what they argue for in this lawsuit.  Instead, they claim that churches should not be exempt.  They support the Form-990 so much, they want everyone to have to fill it out, and they'll protest by not filling it out until they can force everyone to fill it out.  Make sense?

In some ways this type of legal action is like a protection racket.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Collateral Damage

For John, BLUF:  I don't think the Democrats upstanding second and third order effects.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pelosi: If There Is ‘Collateral Damage’ for Those Who Don’t Share Our View, ‘So Be It’

Here is the sub-headline:

From The Washington Free Beacon, by Reporter Paul Crookston, 18 October 2018.

Here is a key paragraph:

"We owe the American people to be there for them, for their financial security, respecting the dignity and worth of every person in our country, and if there is some collateral damage for some others who do not share our view, well, so be it, but it shouldn't be our original purpose," Pelosi said.

There is "every person in our country" and then there are those "others who do not share [Ms Pelosi's] view.  It is like those who don't share Ms Peoosi's views are "illegal residents".

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

I admit this would be an experiment in which I would not like to participate.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is Mandatory School of Value

For John, BLUF:  We need to rethink our vision of how to educate our youth.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Compulsory Schooling Laws:  What if We Didn't Have Them?

Here is the sub-headline:

Eliminating compulsory schooling laws would break the century-and-a-half stranglehold of schooling on education.

From the Foundation for Economic Education, by Ms Kerry McDonald, October 05, 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

We should always be leery of laws passed “for our own good,” as if the state knows better.  The history of compulsory schooling statutes is rife with paternalism, triggered by anti-immigrant sentiments in the mid-nineteenth century and fueled by a desire to shape people into a standard mold.

History books detailing the “common school movement” and the push for universal, compulsory schooling perpetuate the myths that Americans were illiterate prior to mass schooling, that there were limited education options available, and that mandating school attendance under a legal threat of force was the surest way toward equality.

In truth, literacy rates were quite high, particularly in Massachusetts, where the first compulsory schooling statute was passed in 1852.  Historians Boles and Gintis report that approximately three-quarters of the total U.S. population, including slaves, was literate.  There was a panoply of education options prior to mass compulsory schooling, including an array of public and private schooling options, charity schools for the poor, robust apprenticeship models, and homeschooling—this latter approach being the preferred method of Massachusetts education reformer Horace Mann, who homeschooled his own three children while mandating common school attendance for others.

This is a discussion well worth having.  There are two reasons for that.  The first is because it is about the education (and thus the success) of our children.  The second reason is because we spend large amounts of tax money on education and some of it might not be efficient spending.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Trump as Youth Received Tax Advantages

For John, BLUF:  Remember, the motto is "All the news that's fit to print."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump gained millions from questionable tax strategies: New York Times

From The Hill, by Mr Brett Samuels, 2 October 2018.

Here is the interesting paragraph:

The Times interviewed former employees and advisers to Trump’s father, and reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents related to the Trump family business, including bank statements, financial audits and invoices.

I see two problems here:

1. That one sentence paragraph looks like it is over 30 words.  Sentences should be limited to about 20 words.  I am not sure the Reporter is good enough to write this long a sentence.  The original story treats this with a 30 word sentence.
2. That The New York Times has access to over 100,000 pages of documents that are the private papers of Mr Trump.  That seems like an improper

The Newspaper of Record claims some of the pages are open records.  Great.  So, did they purloin only 90,000 pages?

For sure, this confirms the social theory that even things you do as a youth will be used against you half a century later.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tenth Amendment Democrats (For Now)

For John, BLUF:  I think of Senator Schumer as a bit of a grand stander.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren are all for state autonomy — when the GOP's in charge

Here is the sub-headline:

Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren want states to decide their own marijuana policies. They're big federalism fans — when the GOP's running America.

From USA Today, by Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, 23 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, then Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has delivered a whopping tribute to the constitutional doctrine of federalism.

In a series of tweets, he announced:  “Today, I am formally announcing my plan to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level.  It’s time we allow states, once and for all, to have the power to decide what works best for them.  I have long believed that states should function as their own laboratories of democracy.  My bill is a step in the right direction aimed at removing the barriers to state legalization efforts.” —

Schumer was joined by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who said: “The federal government needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana.  States should make their own decisions about enforcing marijuana laws.”

Ah, the idea that the individual States are the “laboratories of democracy” meme.  I think it is just political opportunism.  But, when you are losing to President Trump you need to exploit your opportunities.

Here are my thoughts on Mary Jane:

1. It should be legal, like alcohol.
2. It is bad for you, but, free will and all that.
3. Smoking it in public is not just impolite, but perhaps bad for the health of those around you.
4. No Government entity is going to make money off the taxing of the sale of marijuana.
5. People under the age of 23, at which point the brain is pretty well formed, should be banned from using it

The Author, Professor Reynolds, the InstaPundit, wonders, further into the article, if Senators Schumer and Warren would feel the same way about guns and abortion.  I doubt they would.  I doubt they are all that happy with the Electoral College.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

State Government and the Recent Federal Tax Cut

For John, BLUF:  You change the tax structure and you change incentives.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Which State Will Be the First to Suffer Fiscal Collapse?

From the Blog of Mr Dan Mitchell, billed as International Liberty:  Restraining Government in America and Around the World, from 5 April 2018.

Partly this is about the recent Federal Tax Bill and the tendency of high earning people to move to escape state taxes, which are now not deductible.  On the other hand, many people can't move to Florida and do their work out of their Living Room.

Here is the author's informal pole on state fiscal collapse, results from just before 1300 on Thursday, EST:

Illinois — 61.56%

California — 17.58%

Connecticut — 9.59%

New Jersey — 7.06%

New York — 1.77%

Oregon — 0.67%

Alaska — 0.5%

Vermont — 0.5%

Kentucky — 0.42%

Massachusetts — 0.34%

Illinois at the top is no surprise, and I can see why folks might pick California next.  Connecticut, New Jersey and Kentucky make sense.  Our Commonwealth, Massachusetts is voted least likely, but still garners some votes.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Lack of Historical Memory

For John, BLUF:  Merry Christmas and here is your tax bill for money earned for being a slave.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Holocaust Survivor, 86, Must Pay Taxes on 'Ghetto Slave' Compensation, Dutch Government Says

From Pajama Media, by Mr Michael van der Galien, 27 December 2017.

Here is the lede plus two:

It doesn't get more insane than this: a Jewish woman, 86, has been told by the Dutch government that she will have to pay taxes on a pension she receives every month from the German government.

Now, it may sound a tad bit weird that Germany is paying a Dutch woman 140 euros every month, but the reason is that Inge Prenzlau is Jewish. During the Second World War, the Nazi occupiers forced her to work in her father's company without pay. Every day, young Inge (then 11 years old) had to walk two hours to her father's pill factory to prove to the Nazis that the family was still tied to their business so it wouldn't be confiscated. Her father couldn't work because he was extremely ill. In 1943, her slavery ended when she and her family had to go into hiding. The Nazis had decided to round up the family -- like other Jewish families -- and send them to concentration camps.

After the war, the German government felt it had to reach out to such "ghetto slaves" and provide them with compensation in the form of a modest pension. Because they truly were victims, the Germans decided not to levy taxes on that pension, so Prenzlau receives her 140 euros tax-free.

Bureaucrats just have to be bureaucrats.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Everyone Hates the Republican Tax Cut

For John, BLUF:  Except me, and some others who are looking for economic growth in the US.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Germans fear huge loss of jobs from US tax reform

Source is the 14 December 2017 edition of the Global Handelsblatt (Germany) and the reporters are Donata Riedel, who writes about economic policy for Handelsblatt, Katharina Kort, a New York correspondent for Handelsblatt and Charles Wallace, an editor for Handelsblatt Global in New York.

The lede plus one:

While Americans are anxiously awaiting full details of the tax bill now being finalized in Congress, German economists are warning that the changes sought by President Donald Trump mean that significant amounts of new investment and jobs will shift from Europe to the United States.

“The tax competition will have a new dimension,” said Christoph Spengel, chairman of the corporate tax department at the University of Mannheim.  Mr. Spengel, who is also a research associate at the Center for European Economic Research, and a group of tax experts at the university have done a detailed comparison of the two countries’ tax systems and published a report under the heading, “Germany loses out in US tax reform.”

And now it has passed.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

For John, BLUF:  .

---

Regards  —  Cliff

Never Give An Inch

For John, BLUF:  The School Committee, counting on their side winning in November, asks higher authority to stifle the City Council, which won the right to decide in court.—Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lowell school board asks MSBA to delay LHS action until after election

From The [Lowell] Sun, by Reporter Todd Feathers, 21 October 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

In a letter signed by Mayor Edward Kennedy and Superintendent Salah Khelfaoui, the School Committee has asked the Massachusetts School Building Authority to take no action on the Lowell High School project before the Nov. 7 city election.

The committee voted 6-1 in executive session to make the request, according to a copy of the letter.  The MSBA board of directors meets on Oct. 25, but has not yet indicated whether the Lowell project will be on the agenda or, if it is, whether it will be tabled until the next meeting in December.

The November election could shift the balance on the City Council, which voted 5-4 to relocate the high school to Cawley Stadium.  In the Sept. 26 preliminary, six candidates who favor keeping the school downtown finished in the top nine.

Well, there is the question of if making the decision to send the letter in Executive Session was a violation of the Commonwealth's Open Meeting Law.

A bigger question is what happens if the City Council goes Cawley in November?  Will the "Never Cawley" Crowd then back off?  I have my doubts, as at least one has vowed to fight on for ever.

And, if the "Downtowners" win in November, do they expect the sitting City Council to roll over and reverse themselves?  Who is their advisor?  Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig?

If we have to wait for the new School Committee and new City Council (what if the School Committee goes Cawley?) then we will have missed both the October and December meetings of the Massachusetts School Building Authority and we will be into 2018.  Option Zero♥ is looking more and more possible.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  From the headline, a reference to the motto over the fireplace in the story Sometimes a Great Notion.  Goodnight, Irene.
♥  Option Zero is we do minimal repairs to our existing buildings.  This just puts off the day of reckoning for a few more years.

Who is Skipping the PP&ACA?

For John, BLUF:  The PP&ACA is a solution that makes the Left feel good, but it doesn't make things better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Majority of Households Paying Obamacare Penalty Are Low and Middle-Income

This is from The Washington Free Beacon and Reporter Ali Meyer, on 9 October 2017.

The sub headline is:

79 percent of penalized households made less than $50,000,

On the other hand, the income of Americans is pretty much like a pyramid, with few at the top and many at the bottom.♠  But, still, that is a lot of folks below $50,000 PA who have elected to not enroll in a PP&ACA approved program.

There were 6,665,480 households who chose to pay the Obamacare penalty in that year rather than signing up for Affordable Care Act coverage. They paid a total of $3,079,255,000.

Of the 6.7 million households who chose to pay a penalty, 37 percent—2.5 million households—earned a salary less than $25,000 per year. There were 5.2 million households that earned a salary less than $50,000 per year who decided to pay the penalty, which totaled 79 percent of households paying the penalty. Finally, 92 percent of the households—6.1 million households—paid the penalty and earned less than $75,000 a year.

That is a lot of low income folks who are willing to pay the avoidance tax.♥

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Well, the $250,000 and above is a long line, but if we ran in $5000 increments there would be a lot more lines and a lot shorter.  In fact, the next to top line gathers up ten of the lower increments and thus is ten times over its natural size.
♥  So, who are we really helping with the PP&ACA?  At least as interesting is the question of if ten percent of Mr Trump's November vote came from those paying the PP&ACA Penalty Tax.

How Much for the High School?

For John, BLUF:  We need to ask the elected officials the hard questions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MSBA delays vote on LHS funding until site issue is resolved

From The [Lowell] Sun, by Reporter Todd Feathers (tfeathers@lowellsun.com), on 23 August 2017.

And why does the site issue need to be resolved, given that the City Council voted to put the High School near Cawley Stadium?  Because this is the age of Trump and the motto is never give up.

Here is the lede plus two from the Todd Feathers story;

BOSTON - While assuring city officials that they remain fully behind Lowell building a new high school, the Massachusetts School Building Authority board of directors voted unanimously Wednesday to delay approval of the city's current plan due to the fierce disagreements over where the school should be built.

That argument - which had seemed to be resolved when the City Council voted 5-4 to build a five-story school at Cawley Stadium - will soon spill into the courts, after the School Committee decided last week to seek a judge's ruling on whether it has authority to approve or reject the new school's location.

The MSBA board members said they could not risk taxpayer dollars to fund a schematic design that might be thrown out if a judge rules that the School Committee, a majority of which favors keeping the high school downtown, must approve the site.

If I had money to bet I would be putting it on no money from our Commonwealth and thus no new High School and no major renovation.

I did go to the web page of Lowell High School Project, looking for cost numbers, and found it to be disorganized and lacking in information.  They need a new web master.♠ 

Then I went to The [Lowell] Sun for some numbers and found an article by Reporter Todd Feathers, published 3 June of this year—"Lowell High project to cost at least $336M".

• Option 1:  (Renovation to the existing buildings, with no new construction) Costing $344 million ($130 million to the City).
• Option 2:  (Renovation and addition to the downtown school on the current footprint) Costing $344 million ($135 million to the City).
• Option 3:  (Renovation and addition to the current school that includes the acquisition of an adjacent office building) Costing $353 million ($143 million to the City).
• Option 4:  (New four story high school at Cawley Stadium) Costing $339 million ($152 million to the City).
• Option 5:  (New five story high school at Cawley Stadium) Costing $336 million ($149 million to the City).

So, for those of you who are incredulous that Option 1 is $344 million, yes those are US Dollars.

The question is, what is a fix up going to cost us?  I am think it has to be less than half that amount and maybe less.  Where are the numbers for that level of effort?  Where is Gerry Nutter when you need him?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I am available and inespensive.