Tax Calculator - Factcheck.Org: Fill & Download for Free

Really?1) Fast and Furious … which was just ATF picking up another program they’d run under Bush called “Operation Wide Receiver” … as a scandal? I’d rate it up there with a long list of Federal law enforcement programs that screwed up, but calling it a scandal is setting an awful low bar for that term. At the very least, those calling Fast and Furious a “scandal” need to rely on an argument that El Chapo, et al, would never have gotten a massive number of American made guns to use in their criminal enterprises had the ATF not been allowing some number to “walk”. Seriously.2) Benghazi? You mean the diplomatic outpost that was attacked - just like 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world under Bush, where 60 people died? The diplomatic outpost for which the Obama State Department had requested additional funding for security, and the cost-cutting GOP Congress refused?3) VA waiting lists? A problem that will never be fixed, no matter how good the VA administration is, without significantly more funding from Congress. This, again, is a matter of Congressional priorities running into bureaucratic realities. It takes a huge amount of money to run our VA system, and it jumped a lot in the last decade thanks to the number of wounded or PTSD damaged vets who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a scandal that we’re busy cutting taxes while there is so much need in the system.4) To me, if there was any “scandal” on the part of the IRS, it was them backing down in the face of partisan attacks when they were fundamentally doing their jobs. Anyone who has checked their mailbox or e-mail inbox knows that there are a lot of 501(c)’s out there engaging in what is really political activity … and yet the Federal Government is giving their donors large tax deductions to fund that activity. It shouldn’t matter to you if the money is coming from Charles Koch or George Soros or anyone in-between … you shouldn’t be happy about them getting large tax deductions (which ends up meaning increase deficits, or increased taxes on everyone else) so they can manipulate the political system. That the IRS used certain words while searching for 501(c)’s to audit (terms suggesting both left wing and right wing political activity) seemed like smart work. The IRS backing down basically means we’re all helping to subsidize political speech that you disagree with, since the IRS has been cowed to submission on this issue - nice job as we head back to a 1 Trillion annual deficit under Trump.You don’t think that the “charity” groups were engaged in political activity that should have cost them their tax exempt status? Why then did so many Conservatives blame Obama’s re-election in 2012 partially on those “charity groups” being intimidated by the IRS? Were they trying to affect the election results, or weren’t they? Fox News should get its story straight.5) If you don’t think that a Presidential Administration should use espionage laws to crack down on Journalists who report leaks, and push them to reveal their sources, the Obama Administration actions might legitimately be called a scandal. Granted, previous Administrations did so as well (a couple of the cases investigated and prosecuted under Obama were actually started under Bush) but a very solid argument can be made that Government should not be investigating Journalists as a way to force them to “give up” Government employees who illegally leak classified information to the media. I look forward to all Trump Supporters joining in support of this civil libertarian position.6) Calling the rollout of the Obamacare website a “scandal” conflates scandal with a bureaucratic snafu, which really dilutes the value of the term “scandal”. If someone screws up the timely rollout of some software, that happens all across both corporate America as well as in Government. I’d rather reserve scandal for lawbreaking and political favoritism.7) Which brings us to Solyandra. There’s no evidence that Solyndra was treated different than others - and in general the stimulus money that Solyndra tapped into also funded a ton of other renewable energy projects, and the US has overall greatly benefited from those projects. As Politifact noted: “While the Energy Department has committed $34.7 billion in low-interest loans to nearly 40 green projects, only Solyndra and one other company has filed for bankruptcy. Our friends at FactCheck.org calculated that the government could lose as much as $578 million on those two deals -- less than 2 percent of the total program, which itself is a small part of the stimulus as a whole.All in all, the claims that political favoritism was shown to Solyndra sort of fall apart - the program Solyndra was funded under started under Bush, and the Bush Dept of Energy recommended Solyndra to receive loan guarantees. It was a bad loan - but that happens, and Solyndra got caught by changing market conditions when the Chinese started dumping solar cells onto the market and undercutting domestic US manufacturers. It cost Americans a small fraction of what the jump in oil prices that occurred as Trump was tearing up the Iran deal has already cost us in only a month or so.8) WRT “letting Hezbollah off the hook” … that Politico piece relies largely on DEA sources who didn’t like that other agencies - mainly the CIA under John Brennan - refused to do things like play hardball on money being laundered associated with Hezbollah drug trafficking. Anti-Obama people want to blame it on trying to be nice to Iran in order to secure a deal (even as Hezbollah members were being indicted by the DOJ), while other experts point out that going after Lebanese banks would have probably thrown that countries economy into a tailspin and further increased the refugee problem from neighboring Syria.So again - this is raising every dispute over foreign policy that Jon Miller disagrees with to the level of “scandal”.9) Like, for example, saying the Iran Deal was “a scandal unto itself”. Had enough stupid yet?10) Hillary’s e-mails? Sloppy, but not a scandal, except for the desire of the GOP to ride and flog that dead horse as far as they can. Which has admittedly been pretty far, thanks to a very lazy American media.11) Allowing Russia to meddle in the 2016 elections? There was one proper response to this - the Democratic President of the US standing side by side with the Republican Speaker of the House, and Republican Senate Majority Leader, and denouncing it in October 2016. Obama asked - McConnell and Ryan refused.Had Obama unilaterally made a warning to the American People about what our intelligence community knew about Russian meddling at the time - I suspect Jon Miller would be calling that a “scandal” right now.12) DOJ “collusion” with the Hillary Campaign to spy on Carter Page? The DOJ had been “spying” on known Russian contact Page long before he was ever a member of the Trump Campaign.Jon Miller says Obama should be embarrassed (and amusingly, calls him a narcissist, without any sense of reflection on the over-the-top narcissism of the current POTUS). There are things Obama should be embarrassed about wrt some of those things - I’m not fond of investigating journalists, and the ACA website rollout was screwed up - and I could come up with a list of other things (like continuing to waste men and money on the futility of Afghanistan, and the decision to join England and France in providing air cover to Libyan rebels) that I’d certainly be embarrassed about were I him.But “scandals”? This hit piece by Miller is really an embarrassment to true conservatives.

Elizabeth Warren and others want to use a “carrot and stick" approach. To incentivize on one end and close loopholes and escape routes on the other.So, in this article economists break down some of the criticisms of this tax and some of the support -real examples and comments from some in the top 75,000 families that would be subject to the 2% and 3% of assets over $50 million and billionaires, respectively.Why Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth Tax Would Work One economist calls the $275 trillion-dollar gain (over a decade) as calculated as “wildly optimistic.” But many more economists agree that the $175 trillion figure Warren has calculated as being more realistic and even a modest estimate.Trillions are BIG numbers and would pay for many of the policies designed to get young parents working earlier (universal child care, universal pre-K) and get them saving, investing and spending earlier. And relieve the neediest families buried in student debt - on a sliding scale (some 45 million, not everyone and not the “rich kids”) for the same reason -to let them participate in home buying, business startups and savings, all key drivers of the economy.And, although she hasn't emphasized this -in order for them to be able to go back and renew technical skills, computer skills, etc so employers don't have to export our jobs or import workers, or replace them at a lower cost with “gig workers" from the next generation.It's the same reason she wants to expand Pell Grants and public education to include technical colleges, community colleges and 4-year colleges. To keep us competitive in a global economy and keep jobs here.It's important to note that some 15.6% of the American population is over 65 as of 2017 and we need workers to work in elderly health care jobs. And pay them better.Warren is about creating jobs and keeping our jobs, work and wealth here in America.And Warren sees us leading the world in a new Green Economic model, to be on the forefront of the invention, the engineering and manufacturing of these Green technologies.*Speaking of “wildly optimistic,” Bernie will never be able to wipe out the whole $1.5 trillion in student debt threatening our economy. Warren's proposed budget is $650 billion.Most millionaires support a tax on wealth above $50 million, CNBC survey saysHere is another article that is balanced and includes criticisms of the wealth tax.Facts on Warren's Wealth Tax Plan - FactCheck.orgDon't underestimate Senator Warren's expertise and research -economics is what she DOES.Remember that Great Recession just 10 years ago?Warren ran that Emergency Economic Stabilization Act program, also the TARP program which saved hundreds of thousands of homes.She is most responsible for that rapid economic turnaround. From her Wikipedia page:Warren's initial foray into public policybegan in 1995 when she worked to oppose what eventually became a 2005 act restricting bankruptcy access for individuals. Her national profile rose during the late 2000s following her forceful public stances in favor of more stringent banking regulations following the 2007–08 financial crisis. She served as chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was instrumental in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, of which she served as the first Special Advisor under President Obama.

What needs to happen so that a total economic reform for healthcare occurs?By getting HONEST information firstI replied to the following question, but the reply to this question is identicalHow can Americans beat the health insurance/pharma industryThere is no one to “beat”Consider Pharma - Can you ship drugsin bonded storage across 3,000 miles,enter it into a U S port, andthen truck it another 1,500 miles,store it in bonded and controlled access,dispense itprovide child proof packaging, andprovide full documentation -all with trace to the date and time of manufacturefor less than 4.00 for a monthly dose?-Health Insurance as a part of the business Insurance Companies do is NOT profitableTrump said similar - as he also did not realize just what Insurance Companies actually did, or that most were INTERNATIONALTrump says insurers made fortune off Obamacare. They didn't. (Trump says insurers made fortune off Obamacare. They didn't.)Trump Misleads on Insurer Profits - FactCheck.org (Trump Misleads on Insurer Profits - FactCheck.org)https://www.washingtonpost.com/n... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/n...)In fact - it is so not profitable -insurance companies left that market segment in the last several years19 of 23 not for profit insurers failed between 2014 and 2018So there is no one to beat there either-Per capita Medicare administration is NOT far less than health insurance administration.In part because they are not measured in the same wayMedicare does per claim costPrivate Insurance must do per person costsOf course Private Insurance is also taxed about 50 Billion per year in state taxesThose taes get moved elsewhere under Medicare for Alland private insurance covers Medicare benefits that Original Medicare does not-People assume just changing the payment system will cut U S costsIn fact it will NOT CUT COSTSThe issue is the U S has a higher rate of medical need, illness and disease per 1,000 than any other countryBy not looking at rates of occurrence, they make a very basic assumption that the numbers of medically needy are equalBecause that assumption is flawed - the assumption that the two nations should have similar costs is ALSO flawedAnd since cost is expressed per person in most charts - people ASSuME the actual cost is exactly that, as if medical costs magically stop at 1 cent over that number. In reality, the cost per person is a calculated average based on total medical spend / the population.Notice the difference between USA, Canada and other nations in the following chartsand the occurrences of medical need are HANDS DOWN more prevalent in the U SNotice the difference between U S A and all of north america, INCLUDING Canada - if they are dying - they are also OD’ing and going to ER’s to rack up costsNotice the difference between the U S and CanadaNotice the difference between U S and CanadaNotice the difference between U S and Canada -if they are dying - they are also going to ER’s to rack up costsSo - what person would assume costs for medical care per 1,000 would be the same in Canada and the U S if the need and use is DIFFERENT between Canada and the U S?The assumption of the same cost per 1,000 / average cost per person being the same would seem very STUPID to most thinking people, once they actually see the differences