CNSnews reported this week that a study by the Tax Foundation found a net loss of 1.3 million New Yorkers who left the state over the 10 year period from 2000-2010.
3.4 million total moved out of state, but another 2.1 moved in, so the change was -1.3 million — which totaled a loss of $45.6 billion in income.
Although many factors determine one’s decision to move to or from a locality, taxes are typically part of the process. As such, the Tax Foundation noted many high tax facts that are unique to New York:
According to the group, New York ranked second among the states for the highest state and local tax burden in 2009. The Empire State was ranked highest for tax burden every year from 1977 until 2006, except in 1984 when it was ranked second.
New York State has a progressive personal income tax rate ranging from 6.45 percent to 8.82 percent for those earning over $2 million. Sales varies by county, and is between seven and eight percent. In Manhattan, the sales tax is 8.875 percent.
According to the Retirement Living Center, which examines tax burdens by state for those nearing retirement, New York also levies a gasoline tax at 49.0 cents per gallon and a cigarette tax of $4.35 per pack, along with an additional $1.50 per pack in New York City.
New York is also one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia that collects an estate tax, with a $1 million exemption and a progressive rate from 0.8 percent to 16 percent.
In 2007, New York State collected $1.1 billion from its estate and gift taxes, the highest of any of the states, according to the Tax Foundation.
I have mentioned these points before. Back in 2009, Rush Limbaugh fled the state due to the crushing taxes. And an Op-Ed in the NY Post last year discussed the implications of a shrinking population — loss of revenue, House of Representative seats, and policy power.
High taxes have devastating consequences. Thomas Sowell once quipped, “Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders”.
The folks over at CNS news had a little article about our current federal debt. They pointed out that federal debt is currently $15.709 trillion.
They went on to calculate that since March 4, 2011, the federal debt has increased $1,526,126,486,886.61.
The first spending deal the White House and leaders of both parties in Congress made last year was on March 2. On that day, the president signed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded past March 4, when the previous continuing resolution, passed by a lame-duck Congress in late 2010, expired.
The March 4 CR kept the government funded for two weeks and was approved by a bipartisan 335-91 vote in the House and a bipartisan 91-9 vote in the Senate.
Since that March 4, 2011 bipartisan continuing resolution, the federal government has been funded by a series of bipartisan deals cut between the White House and congressional leaders.
They further tabulated the debt per household since the first Continuing Resolution:
Given that the Census Bureau estimates there are about 117,538,000 households in the United States, the per household increase in the federal debt since Congress enacted its March 4, 2011 bipartisan spending deal has been approximately $12,984.
This got me thinking about some more facts and figures:
If the total debt it 15,709,000,000,000.00, and there are 117,538,000 households in the United States, each household is responsible for $133,650.39.
Given that the US Population Clock records that there are 313,582,673 persons in the United States as of today, each person is responsible for $50,095.24
Given that it is estimated that 46% of households either paid no federal income tax in 2011 or will receive more from the IRS than they pay in, that means 63,470,520 households (54%) did. If you divide the entire debt per taxpaying household, each is responsible for $247,500.72 of the total debt, or an increase of $24,044.65 since last March. (14 months ago)
“Following the contentious debt ceiling last August, President Obama promised that he would take action to address the country’s fiscal crisis. He has failed to do that. In fact, his new budget increases spending and projects that Washington will be hitting the debt ceiling again in mid-October – burning through a $2.1 trillion debt limit increase in just over 14 months. This is an unfortunate but clear signal to the American people that Washington is spending too much, borrowing too much, and putting our nation’s fiscal stability at risk.
So some final calculations here.
By around Election Day, the total debt of the United States will be $16,394,000,000,000.00 ($16.394 trillion).
Based on today’s (May 20th) population numbers,
That’s $55,279.67 per person
That’s $139,478.29 per household
That’s $258,293.14 per taxpaying household
Friday we hear the news that the new unemployment rate is 8.1%. Since Obama’s goal post is to get the number at least under 8% in time for election day, this number — on the surface — sounds relatively good, right?
Payrolls only added 115,000 new jobs, the lowest number in six months. According to Bloomberg, it missed the target estimate of 160,000.
The unemployment rate was forecast to hold at 8.2 percent, according to the survey median. It has exceeded 8 percent since February 2009, the longest such stretch since monthly records began in 1948.
The participation rate, which indicates the share of working-age people in the labor force, fell to 63.6 percent, the lowest since December 1981, from 63.8 percent.
Bloomberg also posted the underemployment rate, which consists both of part-time workers who want full time work and those who have stopped working. That number is 14.5%.
Overall, not a good picture for jobs and economy right now. Breitbart gave a quick synopsis on numbers and their theory as to why the Obama administration continues to focus on less critical matters, such as dogs and contraception. They are trying to deflect emotions away from the depressing job data which undermines Obama’s continued assertion that we are in a recovery and things are better.
The State Department last year tried to put off a decision about TransCanada’s first application until after the election, arguing it needed more time to study the issue. That move delighted the president’s environmental allies who fear a future catastrophe, but angered many of his labor union supporters, who say the pipeline will produce jobs.
Congress then passed a bill requiring the president to expedite his decision, and faced with the tighter deadline the State Department ruled against the application.
Now, Republicans said Mr. Obama has a do-over.
Indeed. As I’ve stated in prior posts, passage of Keystone Pipeline project is important because the very fact of a project of this magnitude moving ahead has an immediate effect on the markets by changing the traders’ expectations of future supply.
For the Obama administration, the development has been politically troublesome, pitting environmentalists opposed to increased fossil fuel use and pipelines through sensitive areas against unions and other Democrats who say it will create badly needed jobs in a shaky economy.
With this question coming up within 6 months of an presidential election, it will be interesting to see if Obama continues to pander to his environment base, or appeal to voters who wish to see job creation and economic recovery.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) was seriously thinking about getting a budget on the table, but according to The Hill, he “bowed to pressure from fellow Democrats on Tuesday and postponed a committee vote on a 2013 budget resolution, most likely until after the November elections
the last time Senate Democrats passed a budget, a gallon of gas cost about half what it does now, the debt was $4.5 trillion dollars less than it is today, and ObamaCare was just a twinkle in the president’s eye,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Meanwhile, Katherine Revello over at Conservative Ntaews Daily, shared a picture from 4/18/12 from the Twitter account of the GOP Senate Budget Committee (@BudgetGOP) . The empty chairs at that meeting belong to the Democrat members of the Committee. Hard to get much done, I would think.
So, as of Sunday, April 29th, we will be officially 1096 days without a budget. 3 full years. Trillions more in debt.
First we had Energy Secretary Chu admit that high gas prices are a good thing. Now, we have the EPA — a darling agency of the Obama Administration — describe on video that the
EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.
The video is below.
Senator Inhofe went on to remark that
the video provides Americans with “a glimpse of the Obama administration’s true agenda.”
That agenda, Inhofe said, is to “incite fear” in the public with unsubstantiated claims and “intimidate” oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties – then, quietly backtrack once the public’s perception has been firmly jaded against oil and natural gas.
This little gem came out today during the daily White House press briefing. Real Clear Politics is reporting that Ed Henry pressed Jay Carney about Obama’s vote in 2005 where he supported a bill which contained more than $2 billion in oil subsidies. This is one for which he didn’t vote “present”; he voted “yes”. Click here for the amusing video exchange.
Henry: Why did the President vote for the energy bill in 2005 as a Senator that had over $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry? They were making a lot of money then too.
Carney: What I can tell you Ed is that the oil and gas companies in this country are making record profits, now, in 2012. The price at the pump is very high and that is plenty of incentive for these companies to continue drill, to continue to explore, to continue to develop energy sources here in the United States and abroad. There is no reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize that activity.
Henry: So why’d he vote for it?
Carney: I haven’t examined the vote, or what the prices were at the time, or the whole bill it was attached to. What I know and what the President knows is that this year, 2012, when we are seeing high prices at the pump, high prices in the international oil markets and high profits for the oil and gas companies, there is no reason to continue these kinds of subsidies. Take that argument to the people, I don’t think they’ll go along with it.
In previous writings, I’ve noted how politicians decry oil’s “record-profits” — but coincidentally forget to mention how much money the oil companies have invested just to earn said profits.
Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal was defeated Wednesday night in the House of Representatives by a vote of 414-0. Not a single Democrat supported it. This vote was reminiscent of the defeat of Obama’s budget last year in the Senate, by a vote of 97-0. No Democrats would put their name to that budget, either.
Clearly, considering that we are now 1065 days without a budget is result of the lack of any substantive and serious thought coming from the White House. Two years, two unanimous defeats in two different parts of Congress can only lead to one conclusion: Barack Obama’s economic ideas on taxes and deficit reduction are so vastly out of touch with both Republicans and Democrats that no one is willing to back them.
As I have written here before, the President has been able to effectively pass laws which Congress has not passed through the use of the Executive Order and his government agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seems to be one of his most popular. For instance, limitations on emissions were passed as a set of rules by the EPA, implementing almost the entirety of the cap-and-trade bill which failed in the Congress. Now the EPA strikes again!
long-awaited rules to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from new power plants that will effectively block the construction of new coal-burning plants and make natural gas even more attractive as a fuel for generating electricity.
New power plants have a emissions limitation of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. This affects new coal plants because they must be fitted with special equipment which catches the emissions and stores them. The cost to do so is extremely expensive, and a pilot program has shown it is not economically viable.
AEP pulled the plug last summer on a high-profile pilot program to capture emissions from one of its plants in West Virginia because the utility couldn’t recover the costs of the program from its customers.
These unnecessary regulations could spell the end of coal-burning plants, which admittedly, is a goal of the Obama administration. Obama is pushing natural gas as an alternative fuel for generating electricity. The demise of the coal industry, however, would be a huge loss of income and jobs for many states, something Obama fails to mention. Apparently, excessive regulations trump the economy. Glad we have the EPA to help us along!
A recent article in the WSJ discusses a newly-released report. Tax breaks, for all segments of the population, total more than $1 trillion. Such a staggering figure — roughly the size of the annual federal deficit budget — reinforces something I have stressed repeatedly: the need to overhaul the tax code.
However, the report also
citing political opposition, technical challenges and other reasons, said that “it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion in additional tax revenues” by eliminating tax breaks. That likely would leave little for reducing tax rates, perhaps only enough for one or two percentage points in the top individual rate, while maintaining the same level of revenue
