More evidence that taxes matter: Boxer takes Fight in Macau, U.S. Federal Income Tax Rate Proves Too High

Taxes forcing a fight to be outside the US.

Manny Pacquiao will look to break a two-fight losing streak when he returns to the ring on Nov. 24 (Nov. 23 in the U.S.) at The Venetian in Macau, China, to fight Brandon Rios in a 12-round welterweight bout, Pacquiao adviser Michael Koncz exclusively told Yahoo! Sports on Monday. . . . .

Here are some of the comments about their views on taxes.

Michael Koncz told Yahoo! Sports that the 39.6 percent tax rate Pacquiao would face if he were to fight again in the U.S. makes a fall bout in Las Vegas "a no go." . . . 

"Manny can go back to Las Vegas and make $25 million, but how much of it will he end up with – $15 million?" Arum said. "If he goes to Macau, perhaps his purse will only be $20 million, but he will get to keep it all, so he will be better off." . . .

Read More

Politico's take on Obama's charm offensive

Even reporters are concluding that there is no substance to the Obama charm offensive.  From Jim Vendehei and Mike Allen at Politico:

The truth is Obama has lost some leverage [after the sequester debate] — and needed a bunch of high-profile meetings with adversaries to swat away reports that he’s too stubborn and too political. But, in private, nothing has really changed. . . .  

Obama would have to persuade Republicans to vote for a tax increase for the second time in less than one year. Can you imagine Boehner and his troops heading into the 2014 midterm elections dominated by conservative activists having to explain, not one, but two increases? . . . .

Read More

Obama and Senate Democrats solution to Sequester?: Increase government spending by $62.4 billion, raise taxes by $55.1 billion, raise the deficit by $7.2 billion!

How can anyone take the Democrats seriously?  Their offer to replace the sequester cuts is to increase government spending and the deficit.  Obama supports the Democratic Senate alternative.

CBO estimates that S. 388 would increase direct spending by $62.4 billion and revenues by $55.1 billion over the 2013–2023 period. Thus, the cumulative deficit would increase by $7.2 billion from those changes.

Obama has been critical of what he claims is a "meat cleaver" approach to cutting the deficit.  But his solution is to increase the deficit.  His offer to Republicans who are trying to cut the deficit is to increase it.

UPDATE: IBD claims that Obama's own proposal is even worse, though as they point out the plan has been well hidden.

. . . Turns out, Obama did have one [though he] . . . hasn't exactly been promoting this so-called plan. . . .
There are no details, for example, about the $200 billion in cuts to defense and domestic discretionary programs, other than that Obama wants them split evenly.
And while he offers $400 billion in "health savings," 30% are lumped in a bucket labeled "other."
Worse, Obama's "balanced" plan actually counts hundreds of billions of new revenues from taxes, fees and rebates as "spending reductions." Examples:
• His plan to "strengthen" unemployment insurance is labeled as a cut, but it's really a $50 billion tax hike.
• The $35 billion from the federal worker retirement programs involves boosting worker contributions.
• Most of the $35 billion in Medicare savings comes from charging wealthy seniors more.
• The $140 billion in "reduced payments to drug companies" are in fact rebates Obama wants drugmakers to pay Uncle Sam for selling drugs to poor seniors.
• Then there's the $45 billion in spectrum fees and asset sales that Obama lists as spending reductions.
Viewed correctly, it turns out that more than $300 billion — about a third — of Obama's proposed "spending cuts" are actually revenue increases. . . .

Read More

Some notes on Obama's State of the Union Address

More "investments" (read "spending") and no concern about the deficit (except as an excuse to raise taxes).  The call for more government spending will be based on Keynesianism claims that it will stimulate the economy.  Taxes are being pushed out of "fairness."

The president is expected to revive his calls Tuesday for government "investments" in infrastructure and education -- meaning spending. He'll focus on economic growth, while acknowledging the need to close the deficit through a combination of budget cuts and tax increases.  

"The core emphasis that he has always placed in these big speeches remains the same, and it will remain the same -- the need to make the economy work for the middle class," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.  

He declined to get into specifics, but said the speech will focus on "proposals that are necessary to help the middle class grow and to help the economy grow."  

Carney pointedly countered House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who a day earlier dismissed the idea that Washington has a spending problem.  

"Of course the president believes that we have a spending problem," Carney said. Still, he said "we need more investments that help the key industries of the 21st Century ... take root here." . . .

From the Washington Post:

When President Obama delivers his State of the Union addressTuesday evening, here’s one thing you won’t hear: an ambitious new plan to rein in the national debt. 

In recent weeks, the White House has pressed the message that, if policymakers can agree on a strategy for replacing across-the-board spending cuts set to hit next month, Obama will pretty much have achieved what he has called “our ultimate goal” of halting the rapid rise in government borrowing. 

“Over the last few years, Democrats and Republicans have come together and cut our deficit [over the next decade] by more than $2.5 trillion through a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans,” Obama said during his weekend radio address. “That’s more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties say we need to stabilize our debt.” . . . 

Meanwhile some "conservatives" such as William Kristol are fighting against the sequester, which seems the only way to cut government spending right now.

Sequester is only one step down a stairway at the bottom of which the stones will break beneath our feet. But it’s an important step. It’s too important a step for the Republican party to be complicit in. Its likely negative consequences are far more important than any possible benefit that could come from a small and probably temporary cut in domestic discretionary spending, or from the satisfaction of highlighting the hypocrisy of Barack Obama and the irresponsibility of Harry Reid. Barack Obama and Harry Reid may be willing to sacrifice the national interest for petty and temporary political victories. Republicans shouldn’t be willing to do so. A great political party, on matters of great moment, puts national defense, and the national interest, first. 

Read More

IRS needs more employees because tax code becoming "more complex and far reaching"

It is alway reassuring to see the IRS complaining that the tax codes are getting more difficult for them to deal with.  From Federal News Radio:

"In addition to facing budget cuts and the potential retirement of many experienced employees, the work performed by IRS employees continually requires greater expertise as tax laws become more complex and far reaching," [Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration] said.

Read More

Millionaire athletes fleeing California's taxes

So Obama doesn't think that taxes effect behavior?  Well, here are some people who are voting with their feet.  The higher federal tax rate makes people even more sensitive to the changes in state taxes.  From Fox News:

The Golden State's new 13.3 percent income tax on top earners prompted golfer Phil Mickelson to say earlier this month he was considering a move, and according to the accountants who advise millionaire athletes, he was just saying what a lot of jocks were already thinking. Federal taxes on the top income bracket just rose by roughly 5 percent, and, while there's nothing rich athletes can do about that, they are paying attention to which states dip into their game checks — and how much they take. 

“They’re going to have an exodus of people,” said John Karaffa, president of ProSport CPA, a Virginia-based firm that represents nearly 300 professional athletes, primarily in basketball and football. “I think they’ll see some [leave California] for sure. They were already a very high tax state and it’s getting to a point where folks have to make a business decision as well as a lifestyle decision.” . . . .

Read More

More evidence that taxes matter: financial firms fleeing NY for Florida

This fleeing from NYC will be even worse with Obama's tax increases.  If you increase the top Federal rate from, that means that the higher NY take a greater percentage of what is remaining.  From the NY Post:

An increasing number of financial firms, especially private equity and hedge funds, are fed up with New York’s sky-high city and state tax rates and are relocating to the business-friendly climate in Florida’s Palm Beach County. . . . 

“Florida is a state of choice,” said Thalius Hecksher, global development chief for Apex Fund Services, who moved many of his operations to Palm Beach. “It’s organically grown. There’s no need to drag people down here. It’s a zero-income-tax jurisdiction.” . . . . 

But there’s no state income tax in the Sunshine State. Compare that to New York, where the state and local governments took $14.71 of every $100 earned in 2010, according to state records. . . . 

“In our industry, the people we’re talking about are $1 million-a-year earners. So when you’re talking about tax rates, it’s more meaningful.” . . . .

Read More

More evidence that taxes matter: Obamacare forcing a lot of workers to work part time

Just remember that this is occurring around the country and it is lower wage people who are being hit the hardest.

Hundreds of Wendy’s workers are seeing their hours cut back because of President Barack Obama’s health care law. 

WOWT-TV reports that nearly 300 employees at 11 Wendy’s locations in the Omaha area will have their hours reduced to 28 hours a week because the franchise owner says he can’t afford to pay his employees health care. 

“It has a huge effect on me and pretty much everybody that I work with,” employee T.J. Growbeck told the station. “I’m hoping that I can get some sort of promotion because then I would get my hours, but everybody is shooting for that because of the hours being cut.” . . . .

Read More