web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "David Ditch"

David Ditch: Uncle Sam is picking your pocket with high taxes – Democrats want to raise them even higher

Westlake Legal Group Singles-dollar-bills David Ditch: Uncle Sam is picking your pocket with high taxes – Democrats want to raise them even higher fox-news/us/economy/taxes fox-news/us/economy fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/budget fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 72931d72-6bd9-5c52-981b-8d657d56edbc

Some politicians running for federal office make it sound as if the biggest problem facing our country is that we don’t send enough of our paychecks to Washington, D.C.

They propose increasing or creating new federal taxes on income, payrolls, business profits, carbon emissions, financial transactions, wealth, and more.

Before they start trying to spend more and more of our money, they would do well to consider just how much they’re already spending. Looking back over the last decade, it’s clear they’ve already entered the “drunken sailor” stage.

SENATE OKS SPENDING BILLS TO AVOID GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, SENDING THEM TO TRUMP’S DESK

From 2010 through 2019, U.S. households sent an average of $228,000 to Washington. Here’s the math.

The Office of Management and Budget reports that federal revenues totaled $29.3 trillion during that period. The Census Bureau estimates there are currently 128 million households in the country. Thus, each household’s share of the tax burden comes out to around $228,000.

And this number is conservative, as in low. Adjusting for inflation and the smaller number of households at the start of the decade would cause the estimate to go even higher.

The federal government collected an average of $27,000 in revenue per household in 2019.

According to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office, federal revenue hit an all-time high of $3.46 trillion in 2019, or roughly $27,000 per household. The vast majority of the haul comes from individual income and payroll taxes. That’s money directly out of your pocket.

The federal bill is hefty enough. When we consider state and local taxes, the full burden of government grows larger. The Tax Foundation estimates that workers need January, February, March, and half of April just to cover their full tax bill.

More from Opinion

Federal revenue in 2019 matched the combined economic output of 13 states. It is difficult to comprehend the total amount.

If measured in terms of state economies, it would require the combined output of Indiana, Arizona, Wisconsin, Missouri, Connecticut, Louisiana, Oregon, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Iowa, and Utah to reach $3.46 trillion.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The fruits of that much labor ought to be more than enough to satisfy our politicians.

Each household’s share of the decade’s deferred taxes (debt) is $88,000.

We can think of government debt as deferred taxes. Washington placed an absolutely staggering $11.3 trillion on the national credit card over the decade.

That averages out to $88,000 in new federal debt per household.

Some would argue that the debt justifies a significant increase in taxes. This is the wrong prescription. Federal spending has grown far too fast, and is projected to increase even faster as more of the baby boomer generation receives benefits from Social Security and Medicare.

Real alternatives exist. By eliminating wasteful programs and reforming others, we could reduce federal spending and the national debt while protecting families from tax hikes.

A massive expansion of the federal government would require big tax hikes on the middle class.

Some politicians would have you believe it is possible to fund grandiose plans such as “Medicare for-all” and a Green New Deal while only raising taxes on the rich. It’s not.

Even if Washington confiscated every dollar of corporate income and every penny of income from those earning above $200,000 per year, it wouldn’t come close to paying for the full progressive agenda.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In reality, a European-style social welfare state requires European-style taxes. Yes, that means higher income tax rates on high earners. But it also means dramatically higher taxes on incomes of $40,000, punishing sales taxes, and anemic economic growth.

American families would be better off keeping more of their hard-earned money in the decade to come. Washington is already taking plenty.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY DAVID DITCH

Westlake Legal Group Singles-dollar-bills David Ditch: Uncle Sam is picking your pocket with high taxes – Democrats want to raise them even higher fox-news/us/economy/taxes fox-news/us/economy fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/budget fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 72931d72-6bd9-5c52-981b-8d657d56edbc  Westlake Legal Group Singles-dollar-bills David Ditch: Uncle Sam is picking your pocket with high taxes – Democrats want to raise them even higher fox-news/us/economy/taxes fox-news/us/economy fox-news/politics/house-of-representatives/budget fox-news/politics/elections/democrats fox-news/opinion fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 72931d72-6bd9-5c52-981b-8d657d56edbc

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt

Westlake Legal Group david-ditch-yes-to-infrastructure-but-not-if-it-means-2-trillion-in-new-debt David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250
Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250

Washington never seems to run out of big-spending promises. And when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., huddled with President Trump on Tuesday, they came up with a doozy.

Schumer emerged from the meeting to announce that the president wants Congress to come up with a bill that would spend $2 trillion on infrastructure — including roads, bridges, water systems and broadband.

Now, $2 trillion is a lot of loot. It’s almost twice as much money as is currently in circulation in the U.S. It’s also somewhere between two and 10 times as much as the administration talked about spending last year.

DOUG SCHOEN: TRUMP, PELOSI AND SCHUMER SHOW BIPARTISANSHIP POSSIBLE ON $2 TRILLION INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

In 2018, the administration proposed putting up $200 billion in federal matching funds to generate $1 trillion in new investments. Previous proposals from Democrats, such as 2017’s $2 trillion 21st Century New Deal for Jobs, have relied exclusively on increasing federal spending.

It seems that this week’s s talks never got around to figuring out where to get the money to make good on this latest promise. But one thing we do know for sure is that the feds already spend too much on infrastructure projects that are not proper national priorities. State highways, metro transit systems, and local initiatives should be paid for by the people who use them and the taxpayers of the state and local jurisdictions who benefit from them.

The federal government has a long history of blowing federal taxpayer dollars on projects that should be funded either by state or local governments, the private sector or, in some cases, not funded at all. From Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” to California’s disastrous high-speed rail project, to protecting ritzy golf courses in New York, politicians from both parties have shown a willingness to waste billions of dollars in the name of “investments.”

Consider the federal gasoline tax. It’s supposed to be a user fee, paid by motorists, to go toward interstate highway maintenance and repair. Yet 28 cents of every dollar of gas taxes collected are diverted to other purposes: heavily subsidized urban transit systems, bike paths, even ferry boat terminals. While some of these may be worthy projects, they have no national significance and should not be funded by Washington.

By focusing on further regulatory reforms that reduce the federal government’s wasteful interference, America can have better infrastructure while avoiding higher taxes and a bigger debt.

A better alternative would be to reduce the federal gas tax and devolve much of the feds’ current infrastructure activity to the private sector and to state and local governments. They are much closer to the people than Washington bureaucrats and therefore more knowledgeable about — and responsive to — local infrastructure needs.

Even when the federal government does spend money on a worthwhile project, it often causes significant delays and cost increases due to red tape that is inevitably entangled with federal funding.

The process of applying for federal grants, and the necessary oversight by federal agencies that comes along with federal dollars, always means that projects take longer to complete.

Rules that artificially increase labor costs, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, and make inputs more expensive, such as “Buy American” rules, mean that federally funded projects give taxpayers less bang for their buck.

Private infrastructure projects similarly suffer from onerous and unnecessary regulation.

That is why an infrastructure package focusing on reducing regulation and streamlining the environmental review process rather than just shoveling cash at states and localities could deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in added value.

One other key consideration: there is no good way to cover the cost of a federally financed $2 trillion infrastructure package. Tax increases would reduce the flow of economic investment that is now driving the American economy to new highs.

A dangerous temptation for elected officials would be to avoid paying for the cost of new infrastructure spending altogether. This would be reckless.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

With the federal debt in excess of $22 trillion, and a strong economy, now is the time to rein in the debt rather than add to it. Putting the cost of infrastructure on the national credit card would mean passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. That would be profoundly unfair.

President Trump’s greatest policy successes have been in deregulation and the implementation of a pro-growth tax policy. By focusing on further regulatory reforms that reduce the federal government’s wasteful interference, America can have better infrastructure while avoiding higher taxes and a bigger debt.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250  Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250

Washington never seems to run out of big-spending promises. And when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., huddled with President Trump on Tuesday, they came up with a doozy.

Schumer emerged from the meeting to announce that the president wants Congress to come up with a bill that would spend $2 trillion on infrastructure — including roads, bridges, water systems and broadband.

Now, $2 trillion is a lot of loot. It’s almost twice as much money as is currently in circulation in the U.S. It’s also somewhere between two and 10 times as much as the administration talked about spending last year.

DOUG SCHOEN: TRUMP, PELOSI AND SCHUMER SHOW BIPARTISANSHIP POSSIBLE ON $2 TRILLION INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

In 2018, the administration proposed putting up $200 billion in federal matching funds to generate $1 trillion in new investments. Previous proposals from Democrats, such as 2017’s $2 trillion 21st Century New Deal for Jobs, have relied exclusively on increasing federal spending.

It seems that this week’s s talks never got around to figuring out where to get the money to make good on this latest promise. But one thing we do know for sure is that the feds already spend too much on infrastructure projects that are not proper national priorities. State highways, metro transit systems, and local initiatives should be paid for by the people who use them and the taxpayers of the state and local jurisdictions who benefit from them.

The federal government has a long history of blowing federal taxpayer dollars on projects that should be funded either by state or local governments, the private sector or, in some cases, not funded at all. From Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” to California’s disastrous high-speed rail project, to protecting ritzy golf courses in New York, politicians from both parties have shown a willingness to waste billions of dollars in the name of “investments.”

Consider the federal gasoline tax. It’s supposed to be a user fee, paid by motorists, to go toward interstate highway maintenance and repair. Yet 28 cents of every dollar of gas taxes collected are diverted to other purposes: heavily subsidized urban transit systems, bike paths, even ferry boat terminals. While some of these may be worthy projects, they have no national significance and should not be funded by Washington.

By focusing on further regulatory reforms that reduce the federal government’s wasteful interference, America can have better infrastructure while avoiding higher taxes and a bigger debt.

A better alternative would be to reduce the federal gas tax and devolve much of the feds’ current infrastructure activity to the private sector and to state and local governments. They are much closer to the people than Washington bureaucrats and therefore more knowledgeable about — and responsive to — local infrastructure needs.

Even when the federal government does spend money on a worthwhile project, it often causes significant delays and cost increases due to red tape that is inevitably entangled with federal funding.

The process of applying for federal grants, and the necessary oversight by federal agencies that comes along with federal dollars, always means that projects take longer to complete.

Rules that artificially increase labor costs, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, and make inputs more expensive, such as “Buy American” rules, mean that federally funded projects give taxpayers less bang for their buck.

Private infrastructure projects similarly suffer from onerous and unnecessary regulation.

That is why an infrastructure package focusing on reducing regulation and streamlining the environmental review process rather than just shoveling cash at states and localities could deliver hundreds of billions of dollars in added value.

One other key consideration: there is no good way to cover the cost of a federally financed $2 trillion infrastructure package. Tax increases would reduce the flow of economic investment that is now driving the American economy to new highs.

A dangerous temptation for elected officials would be to avoid paying for the cost of new infrastructure spending altogether. This would be reckless.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

With the federal debt in excess of $22 trillion, and a strong economy, now is the time to rein in the debt rather than add to it. Putting the cost of infrastructure on the national credit card would mean passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. That would be profoundly unfair.

President Trump’s greatest policy successes have been in deregulation and the implementation of a pro-growth tax policy. By focusing on further regulatory reforms that reduce the federal government’s wasteful interference, America can have better infrastructure while avoiding higher taxes and a bigger debt.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250  Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6031647916001_6031634545001-vs David Ditch: Yes to infrastructure, but not if it means $2 trillion in new debt fox-news/us/infrastructure-across-america fox-news/us/economy fox-news/opinion fox-news/columns/growing-the-debt fox news fnc/opinion fnc David Ditch article 71357e65-ac6e-51d7-a1d0-d8dea3d94250

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com