The Post Office wants to be a bank — but that might not be a good idea
(more…)
Obamacare, Exchanges, Federal, State, Taxes, Subsidies
This article analyzes the right of federal government to provide subsidies under Obamacare law, in the light of recent federal appeals court decisions. Highlights the disasters caused by this very poorly thought and written law. Brings into focus a more comprehensive and wider perspective. Tries to find real solutions to the problems and issues. Compares free market solutions with solutions provided by government.
Overspending, Responsibility, Federal Government, Transportation Cliff
This article analyzes the budgeting, overspending, borrowing, debt, taxation and insolvency issues related to federal government and its agencies, in the light heavily advertised transportation cliff. Emphasizes the fact that these so called cliffs are not really cliffs. Proves that it is not a revenue issue, it is actually an overspending, resulting from corruption, inefficiency and carelessness. Proposes more common sense, free markets solutions to the problem.
Export Subsidies, Federal Liabilities, Corporate Welfare
This article analyzes the export subsidies and corporate welfare, and its effects of tax payers’ liabilities. Explains the process of wealth generation, and the distortion in markets caused by government when it starts picking up winners and losers. Provides a historical perspective. Compares the growth rates in United States before excessive interventions from government, with that of post excessive government interventions era.
Taxing the Rich to Aid Recovery in the US
It is a known and accepted fact that Barack Obama’s preferred policy with regards to tax is to increase the liability of the wealthy, while easing that which rests upon the shoulders of low and middle income households. This is a measure that is apparently well supported within the US government, with a vast majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independent representatives all in agreement that individuals or households who earn more than $250,000 per year should bare the brunt of plans to reduce the national deficit.
Not only this, but US citizens also seem to agree that this is the most positive step that their government can take with regards to taxation. The New York Times recently revealed in a poll that an estimated 72 percent of adults approve of increasing federal taxes on households earning $250,000 per year or more, which is a significant portion of the voting demographic in the US. Though this suggests that the government and its subjects are in accordance, there are economic and ethical issues concerning such a practice within a free and democratic land.
A Thriving Economy
From a purely practical standpoint, there are two significant reasons why increasing the tax liability of the rich would be either inconsequential or potentially detrimental to the economy. Firstly, given the effects of the global recession and subsequent recovery, there are a paucity of individuals and households who earn more than $250,000 in the US. This means that by targeting this demographic as opposed to imposing a 1 percent increase on each level of household income, the government will acquire far less reveneue over the next decade than they have the potential to.