One of the painful realities of our times is how long a political lie can survive, even after having been disproved years ago, or even generations ago.
Unlike most prior tax cuts, the Trump version does not even make any attempt to balance the cuts with corresponding cuts in government spending.
Those who think that government collecting taxes from those who are productive to give them to those who are not is just, do so because they have accepted the morality of altruism and egalitarianism and believe that statism is the ideal social system.
According to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, slightly over 45 percent of American households have no federal income tax liability.
Plans to “soak the rich,” who are not paying their “fair share,” have worked politically, time and time again — and may well work yet again in the 2016 elections.
Whether or not you agree with my father’s views on the Federal Income Tax, or the manner by which it is collected, it’s hard to condone the way he was treated by our government.
With apologies to his fans, Jerry is an evil little mouse who constantly pesters Tom the Cat. Tom tries and tries, but cannot seem to overpower someone who is a fraction of his size and strength.
Watching Stephen Moore attempt to debate Paul Krugman was like that.
When Obama castigates spending cuts he is really criticizing your just demand to keep what you earn. So don’t feel so bad.
This year’s congressional efforts to reduce corporate income tax will create great opportunities for demagogues.
Cheating means breaking a rule or law; legal tax avoidance merely exploits “regulatory loopholes” without breaking the law and is part of a legitimate profit maximization strategy.
This new political campaign against corporate inversion, therefore, is really an assault on a remaining freedom through which private citizens attempt to retain more of the wealth and income they have produced and earned in the market. It is a campaign to keep the American people captive behind a fiscal Berlin Wall over which there is to be no escape.
If the purpose of government is to spread the wealth and attempt to distribute the good life to everyone equally, then Lois Lerner was doing what she had to do. By that standard, she was even a hero.
Capital accumulation and more production, not egalitarianism and its absurd theories and programs, are the foundation of rising living standards in general and rising real wages in particular.
If you put $1,000 in your piggy bank in 1960 and took it out to spend in 2000, you would discover that your money had, over time, lost 80 percent of its value.
“What the tax code is doing is trying to choose our values for us,” complains Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute.
If cutting and taxing are off the table, we can expect borrowing and printing.
The IRS Reg-134417-13 ruling is an unconscionable attack on our right to discuss, agree or disagree about political matters.
It’s those who want to keep raising the debt limit, continuing to evade the causes of the fiscal disaster, who are irresponsible.
If federal spending were only 5 percent of our GDP ($750 billion) — instead of 25 percent ($3.8 trillion) — there would be no need for today’s oppressive and complicated tax system.
The federal government already has ample powers to punish people who have broken the tax laws. It does not need additional powers to bully people who haven’t.
Apple, the most highly valued technology company and the creator of wonderful products that millions enjoy and use to enhance their productivity, has been accused of not paying enough taxes at a congressional hearing where CEO Tim Cook was grilled yesterday. (See the...
If taxes only concealed hidden costs of what we buy, we’d be lucky, but taxes are destructive in another hidden way.
To reduce government spending means to reduce the money the government pays out, not to reduce the money it has chosen not to take in. The first is a reduction in government spending; the second is an increase in taxes. Confusing the two is of benefit only to con men who worship an omnipotent state.
How are capital gains different from ordinary income?