That idiot Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire thinks Woodrow Wilson changed America for the better

He's also the idiot who wrote the TARP bailout.

And now he's the idiot who blames the Baby Boom for the programs bankrupting America: Social Security and Medicare, which pre-date it and were passed by spendthrift Democrats.

Here.

How to tax the rich and only the rich as originally intended in 1913, and solve a lot of problems

In 1913 when the average Joe made about $800 a year, the first income tax under the 16th Amendment didn't worry him because he didn't pay it and probably thought he never would. The personal exemption for a married couple in the original tax code was $4,000.

Today that $4,000 personal exemption adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index amounts to about $100,000.

Even in 2016 that kind of income is made by fewer than 10% of individual wage earners. Under the original income tax of 1913, 90% today wouldn't have to worry about paying the dreaded income tax either.

Is there a way to return to this golden age of taxation?

I'm here to tell you that I think so, and I say that as a conservative. We could easily simplify the tax code by returning to the status quo which prevailed before the First World War, pay all the bills, abolish Social Security and Medicare taxes, the corporate income tax and all the other little irritating taxes and reduce income inequality in the process. We'd also save a lot of time and money wasted in complying with the tax code's myriad baroque features.

Here's the math.

In 2016 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis personal income in the United States was $15.9287 trillion.

Social Security's Office of the Chief Actuary tells us that in 2016 there were 163.5 million individual wage earners. If you exempt the first $100,000 of everybody's individual wage income in 2016, including from the rich, you're talking about $6.213 trillion of individual wage income which would be tax-free.

That leaves $9.7157 trillion of personal income left in 2016 to tax, to pay all the bills.

According to The Tax Policy Center, the bills were the total estimated federal outlays of $3.9513 trillion in 2016.

So, the tax is 40.67% (9.7157 X .4067 = 3.9513) on all personal income in excess of $100,000 a year, no itemized deductions, no credits of any kind (this is where they all came from in the first place, because the rich pissed, moaned and complained and bribed the politicians to carve out privileges for them to escape paying).

The rich, all 14.9 million of them, will still have $7.2544 trillion to play with ($1.49 trillion from their first $100K tax-free, just like everybody else, and $5.7644 trillion left over after taxes from the income in excess of $100K).

The rest of us, 148.6 million, won't pay any federal income tax, Social Security or Medicare tax, gasoline tax, or any other kind of federal tax on our $4.723 trillion. The only taxes we'll have to pay will be State and Local Income Taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and the like. Of course rich people will have to pay those too, but that's a problem for all of us and for a different level of politics.

I summarize:

$15.9287 trillion personal income 2016 (BEA)

-  3.9513 trillion federal taxes, all from those making $100,000+ per year @40.67%

-  7.2544 trillion left over for the 14.9 million making $100,000+ per year (top 10%)

-  4.7230 trillion left over for the 148.6 million making less than $100,000 per year (bottom 90%)

___________________________________________________________________

0

And the budget balances.   

America's three middle classes accounted for 56.5% of total 2016 net compensation of $7.627 trillion

The lower classes accounted for only 13.6% of the total net compensation in 2016 and the upper classes for 29.9%.

The three middle classes are composed of almost 74 million individual wage earners in 2016, representing 45.1% of the total 163.5 million receiving W-2s in 2016. There are about 40 million individual wage earners in the lower middle class, about 22 million in the middle middle class, and about 11 million in the upper middle class.

Just over 80 million individual wage earners, about 49.3% of the total, made less than middle class incomes in 2016, that is, less than $30,000 annually.

Just over 9 million individuals made upper class incomes, that is, above $125,000 annually.

The upper class is just 5.6% of the total work force but makes almost $2.3 trillion of the net compensation.

The tax farmers eye the middle income classes because that's where the bulk of the money is to be harvested, about $4.3 trillion in 2016.

The lower classes, again almost half of the wage earners, account for only just over $1 trillion of the net compensation in 2016.

W-2 data isn't the whole story of income in the United States but is probably the most accurate snapshot indicating what's what and who's who for the "Why me, Lord?" question those who struggle for the legal tender ask themselves every April 15 or thereabouts.

Your mortgage interest deduction is only eighth in the latest list of top things on which government claims it loses revenue

But libertarians especially hate it. Expect more articles telling you it's got to go as tax reform talk heats up in Congress.

Here are the top 20 "tax loss expenditures" for 2016-2020:

1.  Exclusion of employer contributions for health care and insurance: $863 billion

2.  Lower tax rates on dividends and long term capital gains: $678 billion

3.  Income made by controlled foreign corporations: $587 billion

4.  Contributions made to IRAs and 401k plans: $584 billion

5.  Pension plan contributions: $424 billion

6.  Earned Income Tax Credit: $373 billion

7.  Deductions taken for state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes: $369 billion

8.  Deductions taken for mortgage interest on owner occupied homes: $357 billion

9.  Obamacare "subsidies": $327 billion (what a laugh: they raise the cost, give you a subsidy, and count the subsidy as a tax-free gift)

10. Child tax credit: $271 billion

11. Expensing depreciable business property: $248 billion

12. Deductions taken for charitable contributions: $231 billion

13. Social Security benefits: $214 billion

14. Municipal bond income: $195 billion

15. Deductions taken for taxes on real property: $180 billion

16. Capital gains taxes excluded at death: $179 billion

17. Medical expenses and over the counter medications under cafeteria plans: $169 billion

18. Capital gains taxes excluded on sale of principal residence: $166 billion

19. Life insurance proceeds: $128 billion

20. Deduction for income from domestic production activities: $102 billion.

Total revenue the government claims it's "losing" because of its "benevolent" tax policy on these items: $6.645 trillion over five years, or $1.329 trillion annually.

My, how nice of them. 

Ted Cruz concluded Mitch McConnell is a liar in 2015, now Ron Johnson appears to be doing the same

The Ted Cruz incident with McConnell involved the Export-Import Bank (story here).

Now, Ron Johnson is reportedly concluding McConnell committed a breach of trust by privately telling moderate senators that the Medicaid cuts in the healthcare bill won't actually occur, as reported here.

The current Republican bill in the Senate appears dead as four senators in the Republican caucus have said they don't support it. With a 2-seat majority, only 3 defections are tolerable (the tie-breaker vote is cast by the Vice President, Mike Pence).

When all is said and done we might find out that the loss of support is all intentional and orchestrated in order to save the Senate from having to vote on the issue again at all. The nay-sayers may be handsomely rewarded at some future date while getting to please their constituencies.

Remember, Republicans generally don't believe in anything except for what is. In other words, maintaining the status quo is their objective. They are pragmatists who are willing to accept progressive creations once passed, like the income tax, Social Security, Medicare and now Obamacare, and will defend those programs no matter how they became law.

Lighting their hair on fire for anything is completely out of the question, including for the constitution.

The only thing that will save us now is a meteor strike on the Senate chamber while they are all in session.

Have you noticed that all the dumb ass conservatives in talk radio have stopped talking about this number?

And it's not because they have finally come to understand what this number means. No, it's because they have a different president now, and they're not going to beat him over the head with it.

That's all.

Hey Rush, 94.8 million people not working but still eating! Take the food away! Kids in high school and college and retired people on Social Security have no right to eat if they're not working!

Dumb ass.

Governments often raised funds with lotteries in the past, but how about $7 trillion in FY2017?

I don't think so.

Lotteries started to fall out of favor after 1830, according to the story here, mostly due to corruption. The guys running the things would run off with the dough. So much for the golden age of the past.

Government at all levels in the US will shell out $7.04 trillion in fiscal 2017, 36.5% of GDP.

In 1817 the number was in the neighborhood of $23 million, about 3% of GDP.

The problem with raising revenues today is only a problem because government is too damn big. Spending 3% of GDP today on government at all levels compared with current outlays means they are twelve times the size they should be, $7 trillion instead of $0.6 trillion.

Besides, you couldn't possibly raise enough using lotteries. In fiscal 2014 lottery revenues countrywide barely totaled $70 billion, just 1% of current total outlays.

Every man, woman and child in this country would have to purchase at least $21,757 in lotto tickets this fiscal year in order to fund government at all levels. And that's before any jackpots are paid out, or lottery workers paid.

Or we could just tax everyone that much.

It would be easier and fairer, right?

After all, we're all "equal".

Except 60 million Americans don't make even that much. If government took it all what would they live on?

Hope, no doubt.

On Hannity with Mark Simone, Stephen Moore just said we still have 94 million Americans "of working age" still out of work

There's a statement which is utterly false, and should end Steve Moore's credibility as an economist forever, but it won't.

The metric measures everyone aged 16 and older who is not in the labor force, the vast majority of which are not in the labor force for very good reasons.

For one example, young people in high school, college and graduate school are included in this number. In 2017 they number about 37 million people.

For another, in March 2017 another 45.7 million were over 65 and getting Social Security. In other words, retired.

Together that's nearly 88% of the current 94.4 million "not working".

That leaves 11.7 million "not working", some of whom are disabled receiving Social Security but some disabled are still working, trying to lead productive lives despite their handicaps.

Typically the rest are homemakers, who are trying to make sure their kids aren't rotten like yours.

George Mason University should take away Steve Moore's MA in economics, if you ask me.

And even if you don't.

"Middle class" according to Pew Research Center is just trying to make everyone feel better

MarketWatch here says that Pew estimates middle class household income for a family of 3 at between about $35,000 and $105,000 for 2011.

To understand how too liberally defined that is, consider that in 2011 almost 60% of individual wage earners made $35,000 or less . . . about 91 million wage earners out of 151 million.

Actually the middle third of all those paycheck earners, 50 million, made between just $15,000 annually and not quite $40,000, the average of which is about $27,500. Make over $40,000 and you were already in the top third of individual wage earners that year.

A couple making $27,500 can survive in this world, but it wouldn't have been able to buy the median priced home of $225,000 in 2011. Just financing that without a down payment, an impossibility, at the average 30-year rate of 4.5% in 2011 would have meant 50% of income going to principal and interest.

Putting 10% down would drop that to 45% of income, still hardly affordable. And who do you know making $27,500 with $22,000 saved for a down payment on a house?

They'd be renting, most likely, and not yet solidly middle class.

In 2016 the average median sales price of a home in the US soared to nearly $314,000, putting the American dream even farther out of reach than ever before for the majority.

We told you in October 2012 that the income tax makes big government POSSIBLE

Here:

As an invention of progressivism the income tax eventually worked a revolution in government by allowing government to grow to gargantuan size with a ready pool of available cash, stolen by force from the population's income. And it is no coincidence that the first major expenditure financed by the income tax was US entry into The Great War. Not long after which came The Great Depression. If progressive ideas were good ones, no one seems to have paid much heed to the early evidence to the contrary.

Every effort by the people since the introduction of the income tax to obtain deductions, exemptions, credits and other incentives in the tax code should be understood by conservatives as wholesome reactionary, counter-revolutionary, rear-guard opposition to what the income tax represents, but today you can hardly find a conservative who will even entertain the idea of overthrowing the income tax, let alone any other of the so-called "achievements" of the progressive era. In fact, some so-called conservatives have become veritable cheerleaders for the income tax. Rush Limbaugh, for one, can't seem even to imagine an America without one for the first 137 years of its existence. An originalist in name only is he.

The problem with so-called Reagan conservatism, then and now, is that it makes peace with the tax code, just as it does with the social welfare state, including Social Security and especially Medicare. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan actually campaign on just such a platform of preserving Medicare for future generations. As Reagan compromised in the direction of liberalism in the 1986 tax reform, so will they.

Hillary Clinton's fantasy definition of middle class includes 98.8% of the country

Here, where she says it's anyone making less than $250,000:

Clinton has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class and reiterated her statement to the reporter, which she defined as any American making less than $250,000.

In 2014 98.8% of individual wage earners made less than $250,000.

Commenter explains Donald Trump to oblivious Marxist at CBS News MoneyWatch who appeals to Richard Hofstadter's passé paranoid style

Here:

IHATEUSERNAMESLIKETHIS April 21, 2016 6:6AM

It's not class resentment.

First you destroyed the way we funded our homes and communities -- the Savings and Loans.

Then you destroyed the ways we collectively bargained -- the unions.

Then you stole the [principal] of the Social Security Trust fund, some 2.7 trillion dollars so it couldn't earn interest and started to act like it was a handout you were giving us.

Then you shipped all the manufacturing jobs to China.

Then you shipped the service jobs to India.

Then you "commoditized" the mortgages on our homes in violation of the long standing "statute of frauds" and put them on the big roulette wheel you call Wall Street.

Then when that scheme failed you bailed out the banks that came up with the fraud and stuck us with the bill to bail them out.

Then you ran the money printing press so fast, so the big roulette wheel could prosper while the rest of us found our money buying less and less.

That is not called class resentment. That is called waking up.

Social Security tax rates have been raised 20 times since 1937, they can be raised again and the world won't end

Obama's poor make an emotional appearance at Iowa Democrat town hall, woman speaks of her shame

From the story here:

SANDERS: I want to hear what it is like if people, know people or themselves, what is it like to live on $12,000 a year, $10,000 a year on Social Security. We’ve got a mic right here? OK. Hold that mic close to you, please.

WOMAN: I’ve been living on probably less than that for a long time, because of disabilities. (Crying) It’s so hard to do anything to pay your bills. You’re ashamed all the time… When you can’t buy presents for your children, it’s really, really, really hard. And I worked 3, 4, 5 jobs sometimes, always minimum wage. I have a degree. I’m divorced, and it’s just, I’m waiting for disability to come through, so my parents have to support me.

Believe it or not, pick any level in $5,000 increments all the way up the income ladder starting at zero and you will see that there is a smaller percentage of Americans making that income in 2014 than in 2007 at every single one, with just a very few exceptions starting after the 99.992 percentile where fewer than 15,000 Americans fight over incomes over $4 million per year. The percentage of people making any given income is smaller in 2014 than in 2007 with the exception of the very highest earners.

Everything has shrunk under Barack Obama, except his ego.

We all have something to be ashamed about, not just the poor. 

The inflation-adjusted price of the average prime slave from 1860 is $44,100, very close to the 2014 raw average US wage of $44,569

The average price of a prime slave from 1860 was about $1,500. Using the consumer price index, that's the equivalent of about $44,100 in 2014. The raw US average wage in 2014 was $44,569 according to the Social Security Administration.

The annual mean price of the labor of a slave from 1860 brought a return on investment of about 12%, and on a month to month basis about 14%.  In 2014, corporate profits before taxes came to 12.7% of GDP.

Total slave population in 1860 is estimated to be 3.95 million,  14.7% of the total white population.

See The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Robert Evans Jr. of MIT (1962), here.

P. J. O'Rourke explains why trouble making the mortgage, plundering a retirement account and buying stuff he can't afford all qualify Marco Rubio to be president

Here:

"Rubio owns houses that he has trouble paying for. We, the American people, own two houses (of Congress) and the White House that we have trouble paying for.

"Rubio emptied his retirement account to meet current expenses. This is exactly the way Social Security works.

"Rubio bought a boat he couldn’t afford. The U.S. Navy does so all the time.

"When it comes to dealing with the federal budget, Rubio has the kind of experience that counts."

The New York Times criticizes Republican tax plans, pretending revenues are needed to cover spending

Here:

"All of these candidates deny fiscal reality. In the next 10 years, revenues will need to increase by 40 percent simply to keep federal spending even, per capita, with inflation and population growth. Additional revenues will be needed to pay for health care for the elderly, transportation systems and other obligations, as well as for newer challenges, including climate change. And interest on the national debt will surely rise because interest rates have nowhere to go but up."

Who is the Times trying to kid?

Revenues have never been needed to cover expenditures and they know it, and rarely have covered expenditures. Expenditures will continue to grow whether the Times or the Republicans like it or not. They are baked into the cake of the legislation that drives them. The only way to fix that is to rescind the legislation or modify it, with its built-in cost of living increases and added population coverage assumptions.

This country has run minor annual surpluses in just twelve years since 1939, doing nothing but slowing down our present arrival at $18.2 trillion in debt.

Spare us the histrionics.

The heavy hitters when it comes to spending are:

• HHS ($1 trillion, 91% of which is Medicare and Medicaid)
• Social Security ($.96 trillion)
• Defense ($.59 trillion, protecting the world without reimbursement)
• Treasury Dept. ($.57 trillion, $.4 trillion of which is interest on the debt overspending)
• Veterans ($.16 trillion, which does such a good job veterans die waiting for appointments)
• Agriculture ($.14 trillion, over half of which is the food stamp program).

Together those six account for 88% of federal spending, and the Times dares the Republicans even to think about reforming Social Security and Medicare, calling instead for higher taxes.

Meanwhile there's plenty else to cut just by axing all the other departments which account for the remaining $.48 trillion making up the 2015 fiscal outlay total of $3.9 trillion.

Let's start with the Education Dept., $76 billion, then International Assistance Programs, $22 billion.

Ka-ching! Ka-ching! You're 20% of the way there, just like that.

See how easy that was?

Conservative news sarcasm alert: 97% of those 94.6 million not in the labor force aren't lazy bums after all

They're the 92 million who are in high school, college, and graduate school full-time, or who are raising the kids at home, or are disabled, or are over 65 years of age, retired and drawing Social Security.

Just 3% don't fit into any of those categories, or about 2.8 million people, that's it.

These are the  truly "marginally attached" who aren't counted as unemployed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says about them:

"These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey."

The BLS estimates they number 1.9 million in September. This analysis puts them about a million higher than that. Both can't be right but the margin of error is only 1%.

The government's estimate is close enough, I'd say.

Conservative news sarcasm alert: 46% of those 94.6 million lazy bums not in the labor force who eat but don't work are over 65 drawing Social Security

CBS News claims Trump keeps the EITC

Here.

For the current 5-year period 2012-2016 the Joint Committee on Taxation has previously estimated the annual cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit to be about $64 billion.

That's actually less costly than the food stamp program was in 2014: $74.2 billion.

Keeping the EITC means keeping what amounts to a welfare program, but one which rewards only those who work. The transfer payments to such individuals basically rebate the Social Security taxes they pay even though they generally make too little to pay much in the way of federal income taxes, if they pay any at all.

Trump's claim that his plan will be revenue neutral is already taking incoming because of things like this.

Of course we don't know what spending Trump plans to cut. He might go really big and call for shuttering some cabinet level departments entirely. The Department of Education, for example, costs $77.4 billion.