Recall that the Citizens United case hinged on the fact that a 501(c)(4)
corporation produced a movie that had a political purpose, in this case
a documentary "Hillary: The Movie" that was intended to highlight Mrs.
Clinton's shortcomings at a time when she was running for president.
I subscribe to some liberal sites, and as a result get regular emails from them. I recently received an email from PublicCitizen.org. Now, PublicCitizen.org is also a 501(c)(4), who's primary purpose lately seems to be opposing the ruling handed down in the Citizens United case.
The email from Public Citizen was urging me to donate money to support their production of a documentary that highlights how bad the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United was.
That's right: a 501(c)(4) corporation made a movie with the express political purpose of protesting the Supreme Court decision that a 501(c)(4) corporation could make a movie with an express political purpose!
Quote from the email "Support Public Citizen’s fight against runaway corporate power with a contribution of $40 or more today and get your own copy of “The Story of Citizens United” on DVD."
As for the notion of "runaway corporate power" it doesn't exist (yet?). We've seen in the spending profiles at OpenSecrets.org that corporate spending comes in way behind unions in that regard.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
19, pregnant, and illegal?
[I failed to publish this draft blog entry last summer. Oops.]
In the AJC this morning (Thursday, June 16, 2011) was an essay (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/some-immigration-reform-legally-979256.html) by a pastor, Steve deClaissé-Walford, who was concerned that the growing animus directed toward illegal aliens is sometimes misdirected. He cites the case of Nati (as the author calls her), an illegal alien who was brought here by her parents 12 years ago. Nati is now 19, pregnant, and facing deportation.
According to the pastor, we are supposed to feel sorry for Nati and set aside the law. His reasoning, as near as I can tell, is that she should be allowed to stay in this country because she had no choice in coming here, has been here for 12 years and legally attended school here. And did I mention: pregnant?
Pastor deClaissé-Walford tries hard to paint a specific picture of Nati specifically and young illegals in general:
Nati was caught for a traffic violation (headlight issue) and "The next thing she knew, she was in jail.” According to the article "She gave a false name, hoping to conceal her status." But going to jail is what usually happens to people who lie to police--be they an illegal alien or citizen. Lying to police was simply the penultimate charge against her, as she was also driving without a license and had the original traffic violation.
As a part of immigration law, under section 287(g), local law enforcement soon determined that she was an illegal alien and turned her over to federal authorities.
Despite the pastor's attempt to portray Nati as a scared, innocent young woman, there are several issues that belie that carefully crafted image. First, as the pastor does mention, is the fact that Nati is pregnant. That cynic in me is forced to wonder about that:
It was wrong for Nati’s parents to decide to break a score of US, state, and local laws—many on a daily basis—in the dozen years they have eluded law enforcement in this country.It’s a shame that Nati has chosen to become pregnant, apparently out of wedlock. It’s a shame that Nati’s family was not located soon after their temporary visa expired, because clearly then none of this would have happened. Nati's "situation" is entirely one of her parent's making.
Another question in my mind is now that they've identified Nati as an illegal immigrant why have her parents not also been located and face deportation as well? Also, why was her status not determined in either of her previous arrests?
In the AJC this morning (Thursday, June 16, 2011) was an essay (http://www.ajc.com/opinion/some-immigration-reform-legally-979256.html) by a pastor, Steve deClaissé-Walford, who was concerned that the growing animus directed toward illegal aliens is sometimes misdirected. He cites the case of Nati (as the author calls her), an illegal alien who was brought here by her parents 12 years ago. Nati is now 19, pregnant, and facing deportation.
According to the pastor, we are supposed to feel sorry for Nati and set aside the law. His reasoning, as near as I can tell, is that she should be allowed to stay in this country because she had no choice in coming here, has been here for 12 years and legally attended school here. And did I mention: pregnant?
Pastor deClaissé-Walford tries hard to paint a specific picture of Nati specifically and young illegals in general:
Overnight, they go from being carefree teenagers to people haunted by the ever-present specter of arrest and deportation. What is a young person in this situation supposed to do? Do they “out” themselves with the likely consequence of forced repatriation to a culture they know little or nothing about, a country that speaks a language with which they may be totally unfamiliar? Or do they keep the secret, in constant fear of being discovered, living ever after in the shadow of the threat that the very fabric of their lives may be destroyed through one false move?Call me cynical, and I am, but let me cast a different light on poor Nati’s situation.
Nati was caught for a traffic violation (headlight issue) and "The next thing she knew, she was in jail.” According to the article "She gave a false name, hoping to conceal her status." But going to jail is what usually happens to people who lie to police--be they an illegal alien or citizen. Lying to police was simply the penultimate charge against her, as she was also driving without a license and had the original traffic violation.
As a part of immigration law, under section 287(g), local law enforcement soon determined that she was an illegal alien and turned her over to federal authorities.
Despite the pastor's attempt to portray Nati as a scared, innocent young woman, there are several issues that belie that carefully crafted image. First, as the pastor does mention, is the fact that Nati is pregnant. That cynic in me is forced to wonder about that:
- is the pastor OK with the out-of-wedlock pregnancy?
- is the father a citizen or is he also an illegal?
- is the pregnancy a deliberate attempt to create an "anchor baby"?
- is Nati (and the mysterious father) financially prepared to raise a child or will the child first breath be accompanied by government checks?
It was wrong for Nati’s parents to decide to break a score of US, state, and local laws—many on a daily basis—in the dozen years they have eluded law enforcement in this country.It’s a shame that Nati has chosen to become pregnant, apparently out of wedlock. It’s a shame that Nati’s family was not located soon after their temporary visa expired, because clearly then none of this would have happened. Nati's "situation" is entirely one of her parent's making.
Another question in my mind is now that they've identified Nati as an illegal immigrant why have her parents not also been located and face deportation as well? Also, why was her status not determined in either of her previous arrests?
Problems with a "flat tax" on income
Whenever taxation is discussed, someone inevitably will posit "What we need is a 10% flat tax on all income, no exclusions, no deductions..." or a close facsimile of this statement.
More famous people like Steven Forbes and more recently Herman Cain, with his "999" plan, have advocated some variation on this theme. My problem with Forbes-like "flat tax" and even Cain's 999 plan is that it does not eliminate the income tax compliance costs (and sheer invasiveness) for individuals or corporations nor does it effectively reduce the complexity of the tax code.
A “flat tax” sounds nice. All your income taxed at one flat rate. What could be simpler? But a flat tax simply removes the progressive structure (different rates for different income levels and/or types of income). This has two problems. First, much of the tax code exists simply to define what constitutes "income". Second, if anything is deductible, such as charitable donations, then much of the tax code will continue to be required to define exactly how this should work. Mountains of paperwork and 10s of thousands of pages of tax code will be involved in defining what is deductible, etc. just as it does today. Armies of accountants and attorneys and IRS agents will remain in place.
If you want to say "All income is taxable income" that's fine. But it probably won't work. The current tax code recognizes that not every penny that lands in your pocket represents "income". For pretty good reasons, the tax code endeavors to distinguish between gross income, net income (adjusted gross income) and taxable income (AGI less deductions).
As an example, if every penny that lands in your hands is taxable, then when Grandma gives little Johnny a birthday card with $10 in it, Johnny must file a tax return and account for that $10, and Grandma may be required to file a correspond 1099MISC to document that she transferred monies to Johnny. Failure to do so on either party's part obviously is tax evasion and a clear failure to comply with the tax code. If this situation is undesirable, then exclusions must be written and further, the definition of “gift” must be codified so as to avoid certain abuses that would inevitably occur.
Now consider the nature of a gift exclusion that allows small amounts to be gifted without a need to report as income on the part of the recipient (or file a 1099MISC). First, how small is small? $10, $100, $1000, is that indexed to inflation? Can Grandma give $1000 *and* Grandpa give $1000 each? How often can a gift be given? Or is the limit a cumulative annual amount? If it's $10, then lots of people will have to file 1099 and cause way more work than it's worth. If it's $1000, a lot of people will start black-marketing "gifts": e.g. maybe I can convince my boss to "gift" me the maximum amount every year? Etc. Etc.
If I loaned $750 to someone, who paid me back $1000 (i.e. repay $750 and pay $250 in interest), the $1000 check is not all income to me right? Income in this case would be $250, the interest paid, the other $750 is simply returning my money. What if I loaned my brother $5000, with a contract, interest payment and everything, then 5 years later decide that he doesn't have to pay it back? Is that a gift? Have I violated the gifting rules? Is that loan income to him? Is it a loss for me? Can I use it to offset other income? Etc. Etc.
What about a lottery winner, say $1000 on scratch off. Surely that's all income? But current tax law says that if he spent $750 buying tickets, the net gambling income is only $250. It cost $750 to "earn" $250. What if he won $1000 but lost $10,000? Current tax law says too bad on $9000, but he owes no tax on the $1000 winnings. Current tax law looks at your gambling income as if you were playing a long poker game: win or lose hands during the game, doesn't matter, what matters is what you have at the end of the game (tax year).
If my house burns down and the insurance company writes me a check for $100,000 is that income? What if the insurance pays more than I paid for the house? But what if it pays less than the house is worth?
More rules will be needed to clarify these situations too. That’s just defining “income”…and those are the easy examples.
If anything is deductible, say charitable donations, then another mountain of pages are required to spell out exactly how the deduction works, valuations to be used, etc. It’s easy enough to track cash donations (but current tax code has a lot of rules on those too, e.g. my donation to my alma mater is 80% deductible if I buy season football tickets, but 100% if I don’t). What is my deduction for used stuff given to Goodwill? Fiar market value? How is that determined? What valuation should be used for the Monet painting someone inherited from their grandfather’s estate when they donate it to a museum?
Think of the pages and pages of rules needed to define these elements, and the record-keeping needed to comply.
Unless you really mean a flat tax applies to all income regardless of source and nothing is deductible, then defining the various things that constitute gross income, net income, and taxable income will consume a large portion of the tax code and will continue to chew us up in compliance overhead. Futher even if you do mean all income, including Grandma's $10 gift to little Johnny bear in mind the thousands of 1099MISC forms that will need to be filed. The benefit of a “flat tax” in this situation is negligible.
Individuals spend more than 6 billion hours doing their personal taxes (at minimum wage that's more than $40B, at $25/hr that's $150B) resulting in about $2T in revenues. The corporate tax code is far, far worse. Corporations spend around $300B just complying with the corporate tax code, to generate approximately $300-500B in revenues.
A half-trillion dollars spent just figuring out how much taxes are owed? To collect about $2.5T?
For every $1 it takes in as tax revenue, the government forces the economy to produce $1.20 and produce reams of paperwork to track, report, and justify the taxes owed and paid. That's hugely, grossly inefficient, not to mention invasive and a huge drag on the productivity of the economy.
A "flat tax" does nothing (or virtually nothing) to correct this situation.
More famous people like Steven Forbes and more recently Herman Cain, with his "999" plan, have advocated some variation on this theme. My problem with Forbes-like "flat tax" and even Cain's 999 plan is that it does not eliminate the income tax compliance costs (and sheer invasiveness) for individuals or corporations nor does it effectively reduce the complexity of the tax code.
A “flat tax” sounds nice. All your income taxed at one flat rate. What could be simpler? But a flat tax simply removes the progressive structure (different rates for different income levels and/or types of income). This has two problems. First, much of the tax code exists simply to define what constitutes "income". Second, if anything is deductible, such as charitable donations, then much of the tax code will continue to be required to define exactly how this should work. Mountains of paperwork and 10s of thousands of pages of tax code will be involved in defining what is deductible, etc. just as it does today. Armies of accountants and attorneys and IRS agents will remain in place.
If you want to say "All income is taxable income" that's fine. But it probably won't work. The current tax code recognizes that not every penny that lands in your pocket represents "income". For pretty good reasons, the tax code endeavors to distinguish between gross income, net income (adjusted gross income) and taxable income (AGI less deductions).
As an example, if every penny that lands in your hands is taxable, then when Grandma gives little Johnny a birthday card with $10 in it, Johnny must file a tax return and account for that $10, and Grandma may be required to file a correspond 1099MISC to document that she transferred monies to Johnny. Failure to do so on either party's part obviously is tax evasion and a clear failure to comply with the tax code. If this situation is undesirable, then exclusions must be written and further, the definition of “gift” must be codified so as to avoid certain abuses that would inevitably occur.
Now consider the nature of a gift exclusion that allows small amounts to be gifted without a need to report as income on the part of the recipient (or file a 1099MISC). First, how small is small? $10, $100, $1000, is that indexed to inflation? Can Grandma give $1000 *and* Grandpa give $1000 each? How often can a gift be given? Or is the limit a cumulative annual amount? If it's $10, then lots of people will have to file 1099 and cause way more work than it's worth. If it's $1000, a lot of people will start black-marketing "gifts": e.g. maybe I can convince my boss to "gift" me the maximum amount every year? Etc. Etc.
If I loaned $750 to someone, who paid me back $1000 (i.e. repay $750 and pay $250 in interest), the $1000 check is not all income to me right? Income in this case would be $250, the interest paid, the other $750 is simply returning my money. What if I loaned my brother $5000, with a contract, interest payment and everything, then 5 years later decide that he doesn't have to pay it back? Is that a gift? Have I violated the gifting rules? Is that loan income to him? Is it a loss for me? Can I use it to offset other income? Etc. Etc.
What about a lottery winner, say $1000 on scratch off. Surely that's all income? But current tax law says that if he spent $750 buying tickets, the net gambling income is only $250. It cost $750 to "earn" $250. What if he won $1000 but lost $10,000? Current tax law says too bad on $9000, but he owes no tax on the $1000 winnings. Current tax law looks at your gambling income as if you were playing a long poker game: win or lose hands during the game, doesn't matter, what matters is what you have at the end of the game (tax year).
If my house burns down and the insurance company writes me a check for $100,000 is that income? What if the insurance pays more than I paid for the house? But what if it pays less than the house is worth?
More rules will be needed to clarify these situations too. That’s just defining “income”…and those are the easy examples.
If anything is deductible, say charitable donations, then another mountain of pages are required to spell out exactly how the deduction works, valuations to be used, etc. It’s easy enough to track cash donations (but current tax code has a lot of rules on those too, e.g. my donation to my alma mater is 80% deductible if I buy season football tickets, but 100% if I don’t). What is my deduction for used stuff given to Goodwill? Fiar market value? How is that determined? What valuation should be used for the Monet painting someone inherited from their grandfather’s estate when they donate it to a museum?
Think of the pages and pages of rules needed to define these elements, and the record-keeping needed to comply.
Unless you really mean a flat tax applies to all income regardless of source and nothing is deductible, then defining the various things that constitute gross income, net income, and taxable income will consume a large portion of the tax code and will continue to chew us up in compliance overhead. Futher even if you do mean all income, including Grandma's $10 gift to little Johnny bear in mind the thousands of 1099MISC forms that will need to be filed. The benefit of a “flat tax” in this situation is negligible.
Individuals spend more than 6 billion hours doing their personal taxes (at minimum wage that's more than $40B, at $25/hr that's $150B) resulting in about $2T in revenues. The corporate tax code is far, far worse. Corporations spend around $300B just complying with the corporate tax code, to generate approximately $300-500B in revenues.
A half-trillion dollars spent just figuring out how much taxes are owed? To collect about $2.5T?
For every $1 it takes in as tax revenue, the government forces the economy to produce $1.20 and produce reams of paperwork to track, report, and justify the taxes owed and paid. That's hugely, grossly inefficient, not to mention invasive and a huge drag on the productivity of the economy.
A "flat tax" does nothing (or virtually nothing) to correct this situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)