Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ Mother Flees from New York to Florida to Escape from the High Tax Burden Her Daughter Promotes


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ mother, Blanca, left the liberal state of New York that heavily taxes residents claiming that her property tax burden was too high as she was paying $10,000 per year, compared to only $600 per year in property tax in “stress-free” Florida. Meanwhile, her daughter is pushing to massively raise taxes to implement her Green New Deal that would cost tens of trillions of dollars and would break the country.

The mother of soak-the-rich Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
said she was forced to flee the Big Apple and move to Florida because
the property taxes were so high.

“I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m
paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here,” Blanca
Ocasio-Cortez told the Daily Mail from her home in Eustis, a town of less than 20,000 in central Florida north of Orlando.

The mother of two — who calls herself BOC — said she picked Eustis
because a relative already lived there, and right before Christmas 2016,
she paid $87,000 for an 860-square-foot home on a quiet street that
dead-ends at a cemetery.

Read full article here…




Why Are Billionaires Eager to Back Socialist Candidates Who Want to Seize Their Assets?



Billionaires back socialist politicians who are calling for higher taxes on members of the ultra-wealthy class because the rich understand they will never have to pay those taxes as the top federal income tax rate stops at $500.000, making it easier for millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying full freight. The very wealthy make far more money on capital gains than on income and capital gains are taxed at about half the rate of income tax. Under the 2017 tax law, federally designated opportunity zones evade capital gains taxes entirely.    People with high levels of wealth pay less income tax, too.




Poll Shows that 59% of Americans Support Raising Top Tax Rate to 70%

A recent poll found that 59% of registered voters in America agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ plan to increase taxes as income rises to as much as 70%. Many voters apparently believe that wealth inequality is inherently evil and should be prevented by taxes. This article explains how France tried a similar program in 2012 under Francois Hollande who imposed a 75% tax on those earning over a million euros per year. It caused creators of wealth to leave the country, and that crashed the economy. which hit workers the hardest. The tax quietly disappeared two years later. -GEG

Supported by socialists everywhere, the reform quickly prompted accusations of an anti-business agenda, sparked an exodus of high-profile personalities (France’s richest man, Bernard Arnault, the chief executive of luxury group LVMH, took out Belgian nationality, and the actor Gérard Depardieu also moved across the border to Belgium before obtaining Russian citizenship), sent local stocks tumbling as investors pulled out of France, and local real estate prices plunged.

While initially the supertax saw broad popular support, the resulting slump in the economy prompted a quick reversal in public opinion. “The reform clearly damaged France’s reputation and competitiveness,” said Jorg Stegemann, the head of the executive search firm Kennedy Executive. “It clearly has become harder to attract international senior managers to come to France than it was.”

Despite the backlash Hollande clung to the principle of the supertax even after it was dismissed by the country’s highest court, fearing a revolt by his leftwing allies. The tax was subsequently adjusted to a 50% rate payable by companies after the constitutional council ruling in December 2012. The final nail in the coffin came from the former investment banker who is now France’s president, Emmanuel Macron. A former economic adviser to Hollande, Macron described the supertax as “Cuba without the sun.”

Worse, it was the workers who were hit the hardest: tax lawyer Jean-Philippe Delsol, author on a book on tax exiles called Why I Am Going To Leave France, said that many high earners had agreed with their companies that salaries would be limited during the two years the tax rate applied, and they would “come to an arrangement afterwards.”

Worst of all, however, French finance ministry studies showed that despite all the publicity, the sums obtained from the supertax were meagre, standing at €260m in 2013 and €160m in 2014, and affecting 1,000 staff in 470 companies. Over the same period, the budget deficit soared to €84.7bn.

And so, two years after it was introduced, on January 1, 2015 the French 75% tax quietly disappeared into the history books.

We bring all this up because the next country where an almost identical experiment in socialist wealth redistribution may be attempted is… the United States of America.

While both Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Republican critics have called AOC’s proposal to dramatically increase America’s highest tax rate “radical”, according to a new poll released Tuesday indicates that a majority of Americans agrees with the idea.

The latest The Hill-HarrisX survey conducted on Jan. 12 and 13 after the newly elected congresswoman called for the U.S. to raise its highest tax rate to 70%, shocking found that a sizable majority of registered voters, 59%, supports the idea.

While Ocasio-Cortez has not introduced any legislation – yet – to enact the concept, the survey shows that just like in France, a broad cross-section of Americans supports it at present (said majority probably needs to read up on what happened in France after an almost identical tax was implemented 6 years ago).

The “radical” proposal was popular with both sexes: women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin, while a slightly smaller majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. What is maybe even more surprising is that the proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it as well, 56 percent to 44 percent.

The surprises don’t end there: increasing the highest tax bracket to 70% has a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters also backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin while Democrats were clearly the most in favor, supporting it 71 percent to 29 percent.

Ocasio-Cortez has spearheaded a group of progressive legislators – which includes Sen. Bernie Sanders – who have called for increasing federal income tax rates on wealthier Americans. The New York Democrat kicked off a debate within her party in a Jan. 6 interview with “60 Minutes” during which she said she would support setting the highest tax, which she said would kick in at individuals 10 millionth dollar of income, at 70%.

Read full article here…

 




Texas: Federal Judge Rules That Obamacare Is Unconstitutional


Judge Reed O’Connor, a US District Judge in Texas, appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that Obamacare violates the Constitution. The case was brought to court by 20 Republican state attorneys general. The judge ruled that the law’s individual mandate, which requires Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. Furthermore, because the mandate is “essential” to the rest of the process, all of Obamacare is invalid. The ruling will be challenged by Democrats. -GEG

A Texas federal judge on Friday ruled that Obamacare violated the Constitution, likely pushing the ruling towards the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that Obamacare violated the Constitution.

Twenty Republican state attorneys general brought the suit, Texas v. Azar, who asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Constitution after Republicans managed to zero out Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year. The judge ruled that the law’s individual mandate violates the Constitution and therefore the entire ACA violates the Constitution.

Judge O’Connor acknowledged that health care is a “politically charged affair — inflaming emotions and testing civility.”

However, O’Connor added that the courts “are not tasked with, nor are they suited to, policymaking.”

O’Connor said that because the individual mandate is “essential” to the rest of the ACA, all of Obamacare is invalid.

“Congress stated many times unequivocally — through enacted text signed by the president — that the individual mandate is ‘essential’ to the ACA,” O’Connor wrote. “And this essentiality, the ACA’s text makes clear, means the mandate must work ‘together with the other provisions’ for the Act to function as intended.”

Read full article here…



Five States Win $839 Million Lawsuit Against Obamacare Program’s Unconstitutional Tax on States

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, requires medical providers to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee, even though the ACA exempts states from paying that fee when providing health care.  The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama era created a regulation requiring states to pay the fee anyway, a fee that is styled as a tax on the states.  Texas sued in federal court and was joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana- the states were awarded a total of $839 million.   The mainstream media is ignoring this story because it supports President Trump’s contention that parts of Obamacare are illegal and should be repealed.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a five-state coalition that on Thursday won an $839 million judgment against the federal government in an Obamacare lawsuit, a massive blow to the Obama administration’s namesake legislation.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, better known as Obamacare) requires medical providers to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee (HIPF). Even though the ACA exempts states from paying that fee when providing health care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama era created a regulation requiring states to pay the fee anyway, a fee that is styled as a tax on the states.

Paxton sued in federal court, joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana. The five states’ lawsuit argues that this tax/fee is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the ACA clearly exempts states from this payment and also that even if the statute did allow it, such taxes would violate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution when imposed on sovereign states.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed on the statutory issue (the APA claim), striking down the Obama HHS rule because it violates the plain language of the ACA law. O’Connor ordered the federal government to pay Texas the $305 million that the Lone Star State had paid in HIPF fees, as well as the fees of the other states, for a total of $839 million.

“Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple,” Paxton said after Thursday’s ruling. “We all know that the feds cannot tax the states, and we’re proud to return this illegally collected money to the people of Texas.”

Having struck down the HIPF tax on statutory grounds, the court did not even need to reach the constitutional claim. Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, federal courts are supposed to issue constitutional rulings only if there is no lesser law upon which to grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. There is no reason to doubt that the states would have won on their constitutional argument if necessary, however, because the federal government cannot tax states under the Tenth Amendment’s intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine.

Surprisingly, it appears that Texas media are ignoring this monumental win for the Lone Star State and the other states also. There has been scant national coverage, as well.

Read full article here…




362,000 Americans Who Owe the IRS More than $51,000 Could be Denied Passports

The Internal Revenue Service says it is enforcing a law allowing authorities to revoke and deny passports to those owing over $51,000 in unpaid taxes.  Some 362,000 people may fall under the scope of the 2015 law, known as the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, as early as the end of this year. 

Hundreds of thousands of US citizens may have to scrap their holiday plans, the Internal Revenue Service said, as it is enforcing a law allowing authorities to revoke and deny passports to those owing over $51,000 in unpaid taxes.

Some 362,000 people may fall under the scope of the 2015 law as early as the end of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing an IRS spokesperson.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which became a law in December 2015, allows the State Department and the IRS to refuse to issue passports to those with “seriously delinquent” debts that are defined as “an unpaid, legally enforceable federal tax liability” of more than $51,000, including interest and penalties. That rule envisions denying first-time passport applications, as well as the renewal of the travel document. In a worst-case scenario, a valid passport can be revoked by the State Department.

However, an IRS representative told the publication in June that the authorities have not gone that far as of yet and, for now, they have contented themselves with simply denying applications. It’s not known how many tax debtors have already seen their travel plans ruined, with the State Department saying that it has already denied some applications.

The IRS, meanwhile, said that the process of alerting the State Department about individuals with outstanding debts is in full swing and should be completed by the end of the year.

An ongoing crackdown on tax debtors has been deemed a success, with IRS Division Commissioner Mary Beth Murphy telling the WSJ that as many as 220 people have paid off their debts by June, replenishing the federal budget with $11.5 million.

Notably, since the sum of the debt also includes interest, penalties and assessed tax, it means that while you think you owe much less than the threshold amount, interests and penalties can make up for the difference.

While strict, the legislation does allow for some exemptions. A taxpayer is not subjected to the law if he or she is disputing the debt assessment in court or is about to settle the issue with IRS through compromise.

Not eligible to the rule are people in distress, including those going through bankruptcy, living in a federally declared disaster area and victims of identity theft.

The exemption is also granted to members of the armed forces deployed into combat. In case a US citizen is already abroad, the IRS and the State Department may not enforce the law, delaying its implementation out of humanitarian or emergency reasons so the debtor can return home.

Read full article here…




Christian Church Leaders Close Church at Jesus’ Burial Site Over Israeli Taxation

Jerusalem: Christian leaders closed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built where it is believed that Jesus was buried. The closing was in protest over new taxes by the Israeli government. The municipal government of Jerusalem issued an order for the seizure of church assets, including property and bank accounts, for new taxes in the amount of $186 million, that they say are owed to the government. Church officials say this is an attempt to weaken the presence of Christians in Jerusalem. -GEG

Leaders of the two largest Christian denominations in Jerusalem on Monday said the Church of the Holy Sepulchre will remain closed indefinitely to protest an Israeli attempt to tax their properties in the holy city, shuttering one of Jerusalem’s most venerable and popular holy sites.

Both Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic representatives said they were blindsided by the Jerusalem municipality’s recent decision to begin taxing them and accused the mayor, Nir Barkat, of disrupting a longstanding and fragile status quo.

Anna Koulouris, an official in the chief secretariat’s office of the Greek Patriarchate, said that all major Christian denominations were united in their opposition to the Israeli move.

“They are serious,” she said. “They really want to see something change before they think about reopening the doors.”

The church, situated in Jerusalem’s Old City, is one of Christianity’s holiest sites, revered as the spot where Jesus was crucified and resurrected. It is a popular destination for tourists and Christian pilgrims from around the world.

Barkat has said the order does not affect houses of worship, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and only applies to what he calls “commercial properties” owned by the churches, including hotels and office space. He said the churches have debts of roughly $185 million.

“We will no longer require Jerusalem’s residents to bear or subsidize this huge debt,” he said in a statement. He claimed Jerusalem has a “good and respectful relationship” with all churches in the city.

But church representatives said Barkat’s hasty move threatened that relationship and that the sudden taxes would jeopardize schools, health clinics and other vital services for their local flocks.

Both Koulouris and Farid Jubran, a legal adviser to the Roman Catholic Church’s custodian of holy sites, said the churches were never formally notified of Barkat’s decision and learned of it through the media.

Both officials said they do not know how the city even calculated their debts or decided which buildings to tax.

“We’re talking about land with spiritual significance to people,” Koulouris said. “Where do you draw the line?”

 Jubran said it was especially shocking because the church has good ties with the mayor, and that at a meeting weeks before the order was issued, he made no mention of it. He said tax inspectors later arrived at a monastery and tried to seize property to collect debts until a lawyer stopped them.

“It absolutely took us by surprise,” he said. “We wake up one morning and find the municipality took unilateral action without previous notice.”

Read full article here…