Newrevenue.org

In France, contributions to churches and charities are treated just  contributions to political parties:  taxpayers get a 66 percent CREDIT for contributions up to 20 percent of income.  (Mighty generous.)  My old French major in college finally comes in handy, if I’m reading this right.

OK, the IRS scandal arises from treating political and charitable ENTITIES differently, « Read the rest of this entry »

The power to tax is the power to destroy, or at least discourage.   As an advocate of higher, indexed taxes on alcohol, I don’t get North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger’s “North Carolina Tax Fairness Act” proposal to impose sales or services taxes on prescription drugs and doctors’ fees.

Some of the Locke Foundation group would tax alcohol like milk, and tax doctors like tattoo artists.  Seriously.  Look at  Roy Cordato, Sales taxes and free choices, (May 25, 2010), http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/05/25/v-print/498695/sales-taxes-and-free-choices.html. 

I understand that folks distrust government, and I don’t blame them.  Distrusting government was at the top of the Founders’ agenda.  And once government starts picking winners and losers, it can get carried away.  But to insist on neutrality — to oppose having government make any distinctions — is to throw out the baby with the bath water.  Taxing medicine and doctors’ visits takes the principle of neutrality to an extreme.  I don’t think they’ll make that happen.

North Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger floated a notional “North Carolina Tax Fairness Act” last week.  Its provisions are unclear.  It would impose sales taxes on prescription drugs and even reportedly services taxes on doctor’s fees, but it remains a mystery.  I  tried to get the specifics last week via phone and email (http://nctaxcut.com/q-and-a/), but have received no reply.  If you find the plan, I’d appreciate knowing about it:   po@newrevenue.org.

Oglesby slides final for NCBA May 9, 2013 sent in:  A big file, with lots of images.

“The Home Court Advantage” is the label U.S.-based multinationals associated with the Business Roundtable want to apply to their territorial tax proposal.  The problem is that the territoriality they propose gives tax preference to their foreign investments. That’s how territoriality works:  we would tax their American income and not tax their foreign income.  Yes, they would give home investments a disadvantage while wrapping themselves in the flag.

What’s their defense for twisting words this way?  « Read the rest of this entry »

 The easy answer is this:  “The Roth IRA is named after Senator William Roth, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and an advocate of Individual Retirement Arrangements.”

But Senator Roth did not name his plan to allow current taxation and future deferral after himself.  That would have been bad form by any standard.  When he first introduced his plan, at some point between 1988 and 1990 inclusive, he called it the IRA PLUS.  Since the plan deferred revenue losses into later “out” years, my boss Senator Bentsen, opposing the plan, said PLUS stood for “Pay Later Uncle Sam.”  (That was Tax Notes quote of the week.)

In 1997, when the plan was enacted, somehow (I wasn’t around DC then) it acquired the name Roth IRA.  Senator Roth had no doubt been pushing it hard for years.  But he was not so self-congratulatory (or naïve) to name it after himself ever.

I’m getting closer to concluding that smokable marijuana should be taxed by weight, and edibles by potency of the processed material in them.  Asking around, I got this confirmation from someone who knows lots more than I do: