Photo
wilwheaton:


States refusing to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will lose more than $35 billion collectively in federal funds by 2022, and cost their taxpaying citizens more. That’s from a new report from the Commonwealth Fund, Not expanding Medicaid is not a rational decision for any state. But there are some very big losers: Texas ($9.6 billion), Florida ($5 billion), Georgia ($2.9 billion), Virginia ($2.8 billion) and North Carolina ($2.6 billion). The citizens of those states will continue to “bear a significant share of the overall cost of the expansion through federal tax payments,” the report says, while they will “not enjoy any of the benefits.”
So red state residents are paying the federal taxes that help support Medicaid expansion everywhere but at home. More than that, they’re losing the community hospitals that they rely on for timely medical care, especially in emergencies.

All because the Republican governors of these states are afraid of the GOP presidential primary. They’re cowards who are hurting people for no good reason, because the GOP base is insane.
(via Daily Kos: States not expanding Medicaid set to lose billions)

wilwheaton:

States refusing to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will lose more than $35 billion collectively in federal funds by 2022, and cost their taxpaying citizens more. That’s from a new report from the Commonwealth Fund, Not expanding Medicaid is not a rational decision for any state. But there are some very big losers: Texas ($9.6 billion), Florida ($5 billion), Georgia ($2.9 billion), Virginia ($2.8 billion) and North Carolina ($2.6 billion). The citizens of those states will continue to “bear a significant share of the overall cost of the expansion through federal tax payments,” the report says, while they will “not enjoy any of the benefits.”

So red state residents are paying the federal taxes that help support Medicaid expansion everywhere but at home. More than that, they’re losing the community hospitals that they rely on for timely medical care, especially in emergencies.

All because the Republican governors of these states are afraid of the GOP presidential primary. They’re cowards who are hurting people for no good reason, because the GOP base is insane.

(via Daily Kos: States not expanding Medicaid set to lose billions)

Quote
"

Extell is also seeking a controversial 421a exemption — a tax break given to developers who include affordable housing in their market-rate buildings.

In October, The Post reported that five of the luxury firm’s towers cost the city $21.8 million in tax revenue in their first year alone.

Together, the buildings paid just $567,337 in annual taxes. Without the 421a program, they would have paid the city $22 million, according to appraisal firm Miller Samuel Inc.

Extell declined to comment.

"

Critics blasting Upper West Side luxury building for planning separate entrance for affordable-housing units - NYPOST.com

It gets worse when you read the actual article. The low-income units would also have a separate elevator and maintenance company!

Quote
"

The Internal Revenue Service’s screening of groups seeking tax-exempt status was broader and lasted longer than has been previously disclosed, the new head of the agency acknowledged Monday. Terms including ‘‘Israel,’’ ‘’Progressive’’ and ‘‘Occupy’’ were used by agency workers to help pick groups for closer examination, according to an internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press.

…Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said he was writing a letter to J. Russell George, the Treasury Department inspector general whose audit in May detailed IRS targeting of conservatives, asking why his report did not mention other groups that were targeted.

‘‘The audit served as the basis and impetus for a wide range of congressional investigations and this new information shows that the foundation of those investigations is flawed in a fundamental way,’’ Levin said.

"

Documents show IRS also screened liberal groups - Taxes - Boston.com

WELL, WELL, WELL.

Text

"Each and every year corporations and the wealthy are avoiding more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes by sheltering their income offshore.

Pharmaceutical companies like Eli Lilly and Pfizer have fought to make it illegal for the American people to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. But, during tax season, Eli Lilly and Pfizer shift drug patents and profits to the Netherlands and other offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Apple wants all of the advantages of being an American company, but it doesn’t want to pay American taxes or American wages. It creates the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod, and iTunes in the United States, but manufactures most of its products in China so it doesn’t have to pay American wages. Then it shifts most of its profits to Ireland, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Without such maneuvers, Apple’s federal tax bill in the United States would have been $2.4 billion higher in 2011.

Offshore tax schemes have become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the “home” to more than 18,000 corporations.

This tax avoidance does not just reduce the revenue that we need to pay for education, healthcare, roads, and environmental protection, it is also costing us millions of American jobs”

- Bernie Sanders newsletter

Quote
"

Ohio really did go for President Obama last night, and he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is, legitimately, President of the United State - again.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month. And the Congressional Research Center really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.

And the polls were not skewed to oversample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not making up fake poll numbers about the election to try to make conservatives feel bad; Nate Silver was doing MATH.

And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy, sometimes. And evolution is a thing. And Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal BY us.

And nobody’s taking away anyone’s guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the deficit is dropping, actually. And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.

And the moon landing? Was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And UN election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms on the regulations on the financial industries and the insurance industries in this country are not the same as communism.

Listen. Last night was a good night for liberals and for Democrats, for very obvious reasons. But it was also possibly a good night for this country as a whole.

But if the conservative movement and the conservative media and the Republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.

Last night the Republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.

"

Rachel Maddow (via seriouslyamerica)

She knocked it straight out of the park.

(via terribleminds)

Link

Speaking Monday night at a campaign event in Connecticut, Obama said the GOP plan “is like Robin Hood in reverse.”

Obama says Romney’s tax plan would give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while forcing middle-class families to pay up to $2,000 a year in additional taxes.

The president cites a study by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center that says millionaires would receive a tax cut of approximately $250,000 a year if the former Massachusetts governor gets his way.

(Source: huffingtonpost)

Quote
"Yesterday’s Associated Press story raises serious questions about whether Mitt Romney established a Bermuda corporation to avoid U.S. taxes and attempted to hide it from the public. According to the report, Romney transferred the mysterious corporation to a blind trust in his wife’s name one day before taking office as Governor in order to avoid disclosure. In fact, he left this entity off of seven different personal financial disclosure statements he was required to file under state and federal law since 2001," Mr. LaBolt said. "Bermuda does not tax corporate income or capital gains. Until Romney releases additional years of tax returns, the American people will never know whether he created this shell corporation to intentionally avoid paying U.S. taxes."

Tell Mitt: “Stop hiding your tax returns” | LeftAction

Quote
"

In Indiana and other states, religious schools are demanding taxpayer support and an absolute right to be free from any government oversight or regulation – even rules designed to protect employees. This goes too far.

…Private religious schools may have the right to engage in open forms of discrimination and run roughshod over employee rights. They have no right to expect all Americans to pay for it.

"

Taxpayers And Discrimination: Why Religious Schools Should Get No Public Funds | Americans United

Quote
"

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for Republicans and seldom challenged by Democrats and has shaped much of today’s economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It’s not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are “job creators” and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a “circle of life” like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

"

Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist whose TED talk about inequality was deemed “too political controversial” to publish. (via theatlantic)

(via wilwheaton)

Photo
motherjones:

thirdwaythinktank:

New chart from Tax Policy Center.
shortformblog:

Obama vs. Romney on tax rates: As you can see, rates are largely the same—except for the nation’s richest and poorest. The poor would pay almost twice as much in taxes under Romney’s plan; meanwhile, the very richest in the country would be forced to cough up about 10% more of their income under Obama. The net effect? In short, Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenues to about 17% of GDP—down .9% from where they are now. Obama’s budget would raise revenues 19.2%, with most of that money coming from those making over $250,000 a year (Graphic and data courtesy of The Washington Post / Tax Policy Center).


Just so we’re clear:
If you’re in the lower 60 percent, your taxes will be lower under Obama than under Romney.
If you’re in the lower 90 percent, your taxes will be lower or roughly the same under Obama.
If you’re in the top 10 percent, Romney got yer back.

AUTO REBLOG.

motherjones:

thirdwaythinktank:

New chart from Tax Policy Center.

shortformblog:

Obama vs. Romney on tax rates: As you can see, rates are largely the same—except for the nation’s richest and poorest. The poor would pay almost twice as much in taxes under Romney’s plan; meanwhile, the very richest in the country would be forced to cough up about 10% more of their income under Obama. The net effect? In short, Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenues to about 17% of GDP—down .9% from where they are now. Obama’s budget would raise revenues 19.2%, with most of that money coming from those making over $250,000 a year (Graphic and data courtesy of The Washington Post / Tax Policy Center).

Just so we’re clear:

If you’re in the lower 60 percent, your taxes will be lower under Obama than under Romney.

If you’re in the lower 90 percent, your taxes will be lower or roughly the same under Obama.

If you’re in the top 10 percent, Romney got yer back.

AUTO REBLOG.

(via barackobama)