Bernie Sanders on Taxes

So Bernie Sanders fully admits that everyone's taxes will go up.  But how will they go up.  Sander's website breaks down what taxes will pay for what.  For infrastructure, Sanders intends to tax the money that businesses hold in offshore accounts.  This would require the IRS to figure out how much money is held in offshore tax havens and then tax the companies saying that they owe this much money. He will also end loopholes in the tax code as well to help pay for his plan to rebuild America's infrastructure.

To get free community college, he will implement a tax on Wall Street Speculators which will amount to $300 billion according to his web site.  I am personally skeptical on how a base $300 billion per year can accomplish this as Speculators don't all exist in the United States and they have enough money to leave and renounce their citizenship. 

Here is one I do agree with wholeheartedly, to get more money into Social Security and Medicare, Sanders wants the cap taken off of taxable income.  What people don't know, only a certain amount of money can be placed into Social Security and Medicare per person per year thanks to a cap on the tax which allows the richest of us to pay off the tax and then not be taxed the rest of the year.  By eliminating this tax cap, much more money can be collected to help extend the life of Social Security and Medicare.  

Sander's wants to create a young jobs program which will help disadvantaged kids get jobs.  To pay for this estimated $5.5 Billion program, Sanders will eliminate the carried interest loophole which allows for a tax break on people of higher incomes. 

For his paid family and medical leave plan, he intend to implement an additional $1.61 per week per person from the payroll tax (the same tax that funds Social Security and Medicare) to pay for it.  So this is the main area where everyone's taxes will increase as apparently there are instances where people pay more for the payroll tax than any other tax (hence why Republicans want to find a way to alter the way we contribute to Social Security and Medicare). 

Bernie wants to protect pensions of about 1.5 million Americans (there are $300 million of us in total) by closing two loopholes on people receiving money they inherit and on art work. Unfortunately this will affect people who own small businesses the most as it makes the Death tax (estate tax) worse as small businesses can be worth a million dollars plus and thus to pay the tax a family member may be forced to sell that business just to pay the tax.

To pay for renewable energy, Sanders will end all oil, coal, and gas subsidies (giveaways).  Which means he is transferring these "giveaways" to the renewable energy group.  So if you’re against government spending/corporate welfare you will probably have a problem with this as it is simply shifting money from one group to another.

Finally, Sanders health plan will be paid for by a 6.2% tax on a business's income and then an additional 2.2% tax on us the American people.  So our taxes will go up a lot.  Also, the progressive income tax we have already, will now include capital gains and dividends together as income (basically money made from investments), which means we again will be paying a lot more on things like stocks, and maybe even our 401ks depending on how Sanders establishes his tax plan.  He also says via his website that eliminating tax deductions for the rich, adjusting the estate tax and our ability to deduct health expenditures will also be subject to change all to help pay for his health plan.

Final Thought:  So, his plan increases taxes for everyone by at least 2.2% of our income minimum.  But if you have savings, or investments which many middle class people now have, you can be paying significantly more.  While his ideas are nice, it is in this writer's opinion that what Senator Sanders wants to accomplish and the method by which he wants to do so will cause all the rich to leave the country, businesses to leave the country, and that taxes will continue to skyrocket till the country collapses financially.  I just see from here idealisms, but nothing here is financially feasible.

Marco Rubio on Health Care

Marco Rubio also wants to be rid of Obama Care.  That is a theme among the Republican Candidates, but with what?  That is what we are going to find out.  In this case, after Rubio repeals Obama Care, he intends to create a refundable tax credit towards buying health insurance for individuals.  After that he says he will reform health care regulations, create protections for those with pre-existing conditions and basically make the entire system focused on individuals so that people can afford to buy their own health care without the aid of an employer.  For Medicaid, Rubio will provide block grants that allow States to use the money as they wish to provide health for their poorer populations, but without the government mandates.  

For Medicare, Rubio will keep it for current seniors, but people coming in will have options.  In this case Rubio like Carson and Cruz will offer some form of option that allows Medicare recipients to choose from a variety of private health insurance plans and the traditional fee for service system.  Basically, it comes close to Carson's idea but still uses government by having the guys who run Medicare approve of which insurance companies and plans may be offered up to our seniors.  You could argue that this protects our seniors from making a mistake in choosing a bad plan, but it hinders the customizable options that comes with Carson's plan.  However, this is still a market driven approach and could be used to test the waters to see if Medicare could survive an evolution into a system like what Carson and potentially Cruz advocates.

Final Thought:  Well this is Rubio's health plan in a nutshell.  At this point I prefer Carson's due to the freedom it gives patients to choose the plans they want, but I want Cruz's idea to enable people to purchase health care over State lines without limit.  However, like Rubio's tax plan, it is an acceptable alternative.  In fact, if I did not know about Carson's plan, and Cruz's was more specific on details, then I may have been in favor of this plan as opposed to Carson's.  But this is just my opinion, and hopefully this gives you enough information for you my readers to make an informed vote.

Marco Rubio on Taxes

Senator Marco Rubio's tax plan does not go for the flat tax idea like Carson or Cruz.  Instead it changes the system's seven tax rates to three.  The rates are: 15% for individuals making 0 to $75,000 and couples making 0 to $150 thousand, 25% for individuals making $75,000 to $150,000 and couples making $150,000 to $300,000 and 35% on everything over the $150,000 mark for individuals and $300,001 for individuals.  Eliminates all deductions save the charitable deduction and an altered mortgage deduction. Creates a new $2,000 (individual)/ $4,000 (couples) refundable tax credit replacing the existing one that phases out for individuals at $150,000 and couples making $300,000.  Additionally this credit will be unavailable to income earners who make $200,000 individual and $400,000 couples.  It eliminates the alternative minimum tax and the marriage penalty.  Also it creates a $2,500 tax credit toward college expenses and jobs skills training but has the same restrictions as the refundable tax credit as mentioned above.  The Rubio tax also creates a new tax credit for kids on top of the existing one for an additional $2,500 and it will be refundable against the payroll tax in addition to regular taxes. His plan offers a 25% refundable tax credit toward businesses that offer paid family leave for four to 12 weeks but is limited to $4,000 per worker.  Also, all business income including taxes on business investments are changed to a single 25% rate.  Cruz does the same thing but his rate is 16%.  Rubio also switches to a territorial tax system where corporate income is only taxed here in the United States and not abroad.  Also, interest is no longer taxed under Rubio's plan with respect to individual bank accounts.

Final thought:  Rubio takes the existing tax code and simplifies it, but you cannot file on a form the size of a postcard like Cruz's or Carson’s.  Is this an acceptable plan? Sure.  Namely because it is an improvement over our existing system.  However, does it go as far as Cruz and Carson's?  You be the judge.

Governor Kasich on Health Care

Governor Kasich seems to want to replicate the success he has had in Ohio with health care, this time nationwide.  Basically he wants to get the whole health industry involved in being concerned about each other's costs to generate a health system that is incentivized to save money rather than spend it to profit.  In what Kasich calls patient centered primary care, all insurers work to incentivize doctors and other medical professionals to treat the patient's issues with preventative medicine practices while reducing as much of the costs as possible, but equal or greater quality of care by rewarding them in some way.  It seems that this is partially done by what Kasich calls episode based payments.  So while doctors are being rewarded for preventive medicine, Kasich wants doctors, specialists, medical device manufacturers and the rest to be rewarded in some way too to incentivize even more savings and higher quality.  This seems to come in the form of insurances rewarding a higher payout to doctors who save them money for conducting a procedure or operation in a way that saves the insurance company money, but is of equal or greater quality that otherwise would have been given regardless.

Final Thought:  Kasich's logic is that providers of healthcare in our fee for service model of medicine are incentivized to perform more services to treat the person who is sick rather than keep them healthy.  While the logic is sound Kasich is talking about a total revolution in healthcare.  However, his wording on his site worries me.  While he does say he wants Obama care repealed as it is an undue burden on businesses and that it mistakes treatment of symptoms for treating the problem, his wording indicates he is in favor of another Federal grab to interfere with healthcare.  I don't know, maybe it is just me.  I like where he is going, but I fear the idea of government getting involved more to create this change in our system.  So I personally think Governor Kasich should stay in Ohio as governor and perfect this model so that it can be replicated by other States rather than risk this model on the whole country when it seems that Ohio is still revising and implementing this new form of health care system (based this opinion on the articles he linked to on his site).

Governor John Kasich on Taxes

Governor Kasich has his own ideas for tax reform.  They resemble Rubio's but seem to be limited in scale in my opinion.  Any case, here is what Kasich will do to taxes as described by the Huffington Post and Fortune. 

Kasich will lower the top rate from 39.6% to 28% and lower the other rates as well, but those new rates are not specified.  Additionally, Kasich plans to reduce the total number of tax brackets from 7 to three.  He will reduce long term capital gains taxes for top income earners from 20% to 15%.  The death tax (estate tax) like every Republican tax plan will be eliminated.  He intends to increase the federal earned income tax credit by 10% while maintaining charitable deductions and mortgage deductions. Business taxes will go from 35% to 25% mimicking Rubio's tax rate, but Kasich doubles the research and development tax credit for small businesses.  Also, a tax discount will be made available to American companies that store money overseas in an attempt to have them bring some of that money back to the United States.  From there he does the same thing as Rubio by switching to a Territorial tax system where the government will only tax corporate income earned in the United States.

Final Thought:  Basically Kasich changes the tax code a little bit.  He tweaks it if you will.  Reason being is that he knows Washington D.C. will not, or avoid any dramatic changes to the status quo.  As such, Kasich will have to pull out all the stops if he would try to pass a tax plan like Cruz, or Carson's.  Kasich's plan really changes nothing else with the tax code.  Same corporate loopholes and basically has the same large cumbersome tax code that we all have come to hate.  But you be the judge as to whether Kasich's plan is more reasonable or practical compared to the other candidates.

Do the dead have rights?

I am writing this as a follow up to my article on Apple versus the Government.  The reason being is that I wanted to delve more into the issue on if the dead have rights with respect to property.  In most cases, as to what I know, they only have rights if and only if they leave a last will in testament.  That is the only time rights are actually given unless you my readers can enlighten me in which case I encourage you to message me via Twitter or Facebook or even here in the comments section.  As such, the government cannot touch the items that have been bequeathed by the dead individual to their new owners.  Additionally the body belongs to the family members and is thus their property along with any other items that were not specifically specified to go to individuals in the will.  However, if the family where to throw out any items that once belonged to the dead person, or the deceased had thrown away items, then there is no longer an owner and thus no right to privacy.  Basically, whatever you throw out (typically where you would place it for curbside pickup or in a dumpster) belongs to no one and the government, police, private investigator, or a random stranger has every right to look in your trash can and take whatever they please.  If the deceased has no next of kin, and there is no will, the personal property of the deceased then belongs to the government.  In short, trash, the unclaimed dead and unclaimed property all belong to the State government (or local or county government) depending on how the law is written.  Thus the limits of your right to privacy once you pass on.

Final Thought:  Surprised?  Well, I was a little too, but you basically have a certain level of privacy once you are gone as once you die your stuff is given to your family with their right to ownership taking effect and the government cannot touch the items.  Additionally, contents of cell phones like the dead terrorists IPhone, even if claimed as evidence, cannot be looked at as once the investigation period is over the phone will be given back to the dead man's family as it technically belongs to them now.  As such it is now owned by them and not the deceased. Thanks for reading.

Apple Versus the Government.

Ok, time to put in my two cents into this interesting debate.  The background as to why Apple is going head to head with the government is that one of the San Bernardino shooters had an apple IPhone.  That shooter is dead of course but the government apparently cannot access the information on the phone.  So the government wants Apple to create a back door for them to go into the phone and other Apple phones/products to monitor for terrorist activity.  Apple however grew a pair and said no to the government citing privacy (Apple apparently has previously cooperated with the Federal government on all previous occasions).  

So Apple is being given two options.  The first is to create the backdoor in their firewalls and operating system to allow for government to spy on us at will, or they refuse and maintain the privacy of the individual owner (did I mention the guy who owns the phone in question is dead?).  However, the government should actually do the right thing and get a warrant.  Yea, that thing that the constitution mandates that judges have to issue to search people's private information ("papers" or in this case electronic papers).  Some of you may be remembering that I said the guy was dead though.  So how does that factor in?  Well, this is me just talking, but the dead do not have privacy rights, but their next of kin/the people who get their stuff when they die do.  So if the family claimed the shooter's personal effects then you still need a warrant regardless and that warrant must state that reasons why the information on the phone needs to be accessed.

Final Thought:  So in this instance the government is in the wrong.  It does not matter that the shooter was a domestic terrorist, what does though is that the Constitution requires a warrant.  As such, Apple is in the wrong as well as they cannot outright refuse either.  If the Government produces a warrant, then Apple must comply with the order, but only for that specific phone.  If a warrant is issued that goes beyond the phone in question, or demands access through a back door, then that warrant will not hold up in court as warrants must be narrow in focus with respect to what can be searched, and or who can be arrested and what evidence seized during that arrest.  Our Constitution covers this people and Apple and the government are both being idiots in my humble opinion.