Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

The Trump administration has proposed substantial modifications to the U.S. tax code, spurring both controversy and support among diverse sectors of society and the economy.

Partisanship debates aside, it has been argued that the new legislation could bring the largest tax cut for individuals seen since the Reagan administration. What we know at the time is that Trump has proposed:

Working on the actual plan and its implementation, the Trump administration has been consulting with a variety of experts and interest groups. Notably among them has been the Hispanic 100 Policy Committee, a group created to develop and promote leadership within and from the Hispanic community.

Readers might remember family office manager and Engineered Tax Services CEO Julio Gonzalez from his recent interviews with Benzinga, in which he discussed keeping jobs in the United States using tax engineering and the challenges of being a Latino money manager on Wall Street.

After Hispanic 100 representatives met with government officials to discuss their concerns, Gonzalez was invited for several follow-ups with the administration, the Senate and Congress. Being a well-known tax reform expert, as well as a member of Hispanic 100, Julio is an advocate for fiscal responsibility and economic freedom, as well as a promoter for impacting the Hispanic population as it relates to the overall social and economic good, a press release read.

So, Benzinga reached out to Gonzalez once again and asked him about the proposed tax reform and his role in its conception.

In the United States, tax reform is under the charge of Congress. First, the Ways and Means Committee drafts the tax reform policy. On this occasion, Congressman Robert Brady and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan drafted a tax reform blueprint, which then has to get reviewed by the Trump administration and ultimately passed by the Senate, Gonzalez explained.

Now, the tax reform that theyve drafted is difficult to get done, much like healthcare was difficult to get done here in the United States because, with tax reform youre taking money from one person and giving it to the other. And, with that people fight for whats being taken from them, he added.

As a representative of Hispanic 100, Gonzalez assured the groups biggest concern is related to the unintended consequences that could derive from the tax reform as its currently drafted.

Our big concern is that, currently under the blueprint, they want to eliminate interest deduction expensing and 1031s, and they want to have a border adjustment tax, he said. The administration is using those three things to get money into Treasury, to cut rates (ultimately) for the growth of GDP.

However, these objectives are not easy to attain, he continued. For instance, the border tax adjustment, which would tax anything coming into the country, could provoke a reprisal from other nations. Its a great thought to think we can get all this money, but its difficult to believe that it just wouldnt be retaliated.

It is also important not to miss the fact that these taxes will mean consumers will pay more for all imported goods. This does not help with getting the adjustment through, either.

Gonzalez goes to D.C. weekly to talk to people in Congress, Senators and people in the Trump administration. Taking into account the limitations explained above, the tax expert consults on ways to get to a tax reform proposal thats achievable in the short term, focusing on things like why eliminating interest expense (carried interest in 1031) could create a glut in the real estate market, which some economists say accounts for 70 percent of GDP.

So, while Ryan and Brady think things like eliminating interest expense will help grow GDP, Gonzalez, as a business and real estate owner, actually thinks the opposite.

What I try to do in D.C. on a weekly basis is try to educate them on what are the unintended consequences that come from the tax reform ideas in the blueprint, he said. How can we modify them to get something done thats not going to have so much resistance and does help GDP?

Finally, Benzinga asked Gonzalez about how he felt his suggestions were being received in D.C.

I think Congressmen, Senators and their staffs are listening. I think that theyre very concerned and understand our points regarding unintended consequences of tax reforms, he responded.

In a way, Gonzalez is not just representing the Hispanic community, but also every other minority group in the country, as well as small business owners. We all have the same concerns, he said.

The ultimate collective goal is to spur GDP growth, Gonzalez concluded. However, the way to achieve this does not generate such a unanimous opinion. We have to see where that balance is ... What I predict, probably, would be a smaller reform that people can agree to getting done. I think, probably, the border adjustment tax will not get done, but ultimately well get some revenue into Treasury, to help cut tax rates and remain competitive.

More From Benzinga:

Alternative Paths To The Public Markets: Nexeon MedSystems' Form 10 IPO And Capital Consciousness

What The Algeria-Morocco UN Drama Means For Regional Stability And The Fight Against Terrorism

Posted-In: Futures Politics Top Stories Economics Exclusives Markets Interview General Best of Benzinga

2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Here is the original post:

Mr. Gonzalez Goes To Washington: Tax Engineer Explains Trump Admin's Proposed Tax Reform And How He's ... - Benzinga

ByNEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government is definitely on the right track with its promised Fiscal Responsibility legislation, a governance reform group said, while warning: The devil is in the details.

Matt Aubry, the Organisation for Responsible Governances (ORG) executive director, told Tribune Business that buy in from both the private sector and civil society was critical if a well-crafted Fiscal Responsibility Act is to work.

Emphasising that such legislation needed to be combined ina one-two punch with a Freedom of Information Act, Mr Aubry said the two reforms would improve economic development and decision-making, while also boosting consumer confidence and trust in government.

We feel this is definitely on the right track, and that theyre on the right lines, he told Tribune Business of the broad Fiscal Responsibility Act objectives outlined by KP Turnquest, minister of finance.

Were cautiously optimistic, but the devils in the detail and we need to see how this goes forward. Those were the critical words regarding a Fiscal Responsibility Act, but the particulars are very important. The nuances that make that happen are going to be important.

Mr Turnquest last week told the House of Assembly that the Fiscal Responsibility legislation proposed by the Minnis administration would target an annual GFS balanced Budget, meaning that the goal is to add no new debt to the existing $7-billion plus national debt.

The Governments other objective would be to maintain a desirable and sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio, Mr Turnquest said. To underpin this, the proposed law would require the Government to set out the assumptions underpinning its annual Budget, along with its longer-term fiscal targets.

Explanations would also have to be provided if Budget targets for prior years were missed, while short-term fiscal targets will have to be placed in the context of the Bahamas long-term objectives.

Mr Turnquest suggested that targets could also be set for some components of the Governments fixed-cost spending, such as the civil service wage bill, while plans and timelines for eliminating any deficits will also have to be laid out.

He also suggested that the Budget process could be opened to public consultation, in a bid to obtain a national consensus around the Governments fiscal targets, while Ministries and Departments eyeingnew initiatives maybe required to find the funding from their original allocations.

Mr Aubry told Tribune Business that Mr Turnquests comments sound like the basis of being fiscally responsible to me, and gave particular backing to the notion that non-budgeted government spending be justified through a cost/benefit analysis.

Were going to stress the importance of the private sector, he added, not just in holding the Governments feet to the fire, but in helping to craft strong and positive legislation.

Getting buy-in from the public is essential to help make this live. You can have great legislation, but if you dont have enforcement then the intent of great legislation doesnt happen.

Mr Aubry said the crux of Fiscal Responsibility legislation lay in the details, and he expressed concern that many recent laws gave latitude to the responsible Minister to override certain statutory provisions.

He added that having an open, accessible and structured process for the crafting of a Fiscal Responsibility Act was vital to obtaining public support, which was why ORG had itself recently issued recommendations forimproving consultation.

Public consultation is the critical part, as it creates a platform for the open sharing of data, Mr Aubry told Tribune Business. Making information publicly available is essential to open, modern governance. It facilitates better economic development.

He explained that by allowing the Bahamian public to play an active role in stemming government spending, they would be more understanding if social programmes had to be delayed or cancelled, and not respond in the reactionary manner many politicians fear.

If people have been part of that process, you will get their buy-in, acceptance and understanding, Mr Aubry reiterated, and if you can show a long-term plan, when it comes to times that will be more painful, people have a sense of when that will be alleviated.

That allows more consumer confidence, and greater trust in the Government and the democratic approach.

ORG has been among the numerous groupscampaigning for Fiscal Responsibility-type legislation, viewing it as a key tool in restraining government spending and forcing it to be more accountable and transparent over how it uses taxpayer monies.

The Government is currently seeking Parliamentary approval to borrow $722 million, which will be used to cover the estimated $500 million deficit for 2016-2017, and the $323 million forecast for 2017-2018.

With the Bahamas debt-to-GDP ratio now around 80 per cent when contingent liabilities are factored in, and the national debt climbing beyond $7 billion, the need for a Fiscal Responsibility Act has arguably never been greater.

Go here to read the rest:

'Devil Is In Details' On Fiscal Responsibility - Bahamas Tribune

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill June 6.

At the forefront were the efforts to restore readiness and increase the lethality of the force. Wilson said any objective evaluation of todays Air Force reaches two conclusions:

The Air Force is too small for the missions demanded of it, she said in advance of the hearing. And adversaries are modernizing and innovating faster than we are, putting Americas technological advantage in air and space at risk.

Looking forward, Wilson and Goldfein do not envision the demand for air and space power diminishing in the coming decade.

Today, the Air Force is manned with 660,000 active, guard, reserve and civilian Airmen, a 30 percent decline since Operation Desert Storm 26 years ago.

We have the same level of taskings today as we did during Desert Storm, Wilson said. But we have 55 squadrons rather than 134.

The Air Force leaders said while the fiscal 18 budget request focuses on restoring readiness and increasing lethality, future budgets must focus on modernization and continued readiness recovery.

The two testified that maintaining superiority starts with people.

For an Airman, its nothing short of a moral obligation to gain and maintain air superiority, Goldfein said. This budget request begins to set the table for recovering and rebuilding our force.

The fiscal 18 budget will bring the active duty force to 325,100 while also adding 800 reservists, 600 guardsman, and 3,000 civilians, bringing the total force to approximately 669,000. The increased manpower will focus primarily on increasing remotely piloted aircraft crews, maintainers, and pilot training capacity by adding two additional F-16 training squadrons and maximizing flying hours to the highest executable levels.

Wilson said next to people, the most obvious readiness need is munitions. In the fight against ISIS, the Air Force has delivered approximately 56,000 direct-attack munitions, more than it used in all of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fiscal 18 budget funds maximum factory production of the most critical munitions.

The fiscal 18 budget focuses on the Air Forces top three modernization programs:

Purchasing 46 F-35A fighters and modernizing other fighters;

Buying 15 KC-46 tankers;

Funding the B-21 bomber development.

The proposed budget also supports the continuation and modernization of the nuclear triad with funds dedicated to both air- and ground-based capabilities.

Our nuclear enterprise is getting old and we must begin modernizing now to ensure a credible deterrent, Wilson said.

Side-by-side with the United States Navy, we are responsible for two of the three legs of the nuclear Triad, Goldfein said. On our worst day as a nation, our responsibility is to ensure the president is where he needs to be, when he needs to be there, and he stays connected through command and control to the nuclear enterprise and for an Airman, that remains jobs one.

The Air Force has been the leading military service responsible for space for 54 years. Over the last several years, the service has been developing concepts for space control, changing the way it trains its space force and integrating space operations into the joint fight.

Weve provided GPS for the world. Weve transformed not only the way we fight but the way all of you probably navigate around the city, Wilson said. We must expect that war, of any kind, will extend into space in any future conflict and we have to change the way we think and prepare for that eventuality.

The proposed budget increases space funding by 20 percent, including a 27 percent increase in research, development, testing and evaluation for space systems, and a 12 percent increase for space procurement.

Innovation for the future

Research, development, testing and evaluation are critically important for the Air Force, Wilson and Goldfein said.

To prevail against rapidly innovating adversaries, the Air Force must accelerate procurement. The service will take advantage of authorities like the FY17 Defense Authorization Act to help get capabilities operational faster than ever before, Wilson said.

The request for funding for long-term research in air dominance increased significantly in the fiscal 18 budget. The Air Force will seek to increase basic and applied research in areas where it must maintain the competitive advantage over adversaries. This includes hypersonic vehicles, directed-energy, unmanned and autonomous systems, and nanotechnology.

Its going to take us approximately eight years to be able to get to full spectrum readiness with stable budgets, Goldfein said. We will be unable to execute the defense strategic guidance under sequester.

If the Budget Control Act limit isnt fixed and we have to go through sequester, that will be equivalent to a $15 billion cut, Wilson said. Were too small for what the nation expects of us now, sequestration would make the situation worse.

According to Wilson and Goldfein, by supporting the budget request, Congress can provide fiscal predictability to the Air Force so it can continue to own the high ground, defend the homeland, and project power in conjunction with allies.

Originally posted here:

Air Force leaders discuss the future of Air and Space power - Santa Maria Times (subscription)

Shaw Communications Inc. isnt content with Freedom Mobiles million subscribers it wants millions and millions and millions.

President Jay Mehr revealed just how big the cable companys ambitions are in the wireless market at the TD Securities telecom and media forum in Toronto on Wednesday, stating Shaw plans to take the playbook from Quebecor Inc.s regional carrier Videotron Inc., which has a goal of grabbing a quarter of wireless subscribers in its operating territory.

We are absolutely as bold in our aspirations, Mehr said.

Mehrs comments come the day after Shaw announced two major deals to bolster its wireless business. It sold ViaWest, its data centre operations, for proceeds of $900 million and inked a $430 million deal with Quebecor Inc. to buy critical low-band spectrum licences in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia radio frequencies needed to improve its network. It also announced plans to invest an additional $350 million to deploy the new spectrum in existing markets.

What you are hopefully seeing now is that our aspirations go well beyond the regional Wind business plan, Mehr said, referring to Wind Mobile, which Shaw bought in 2016 and renamed Freedom Mobile.

The future of our business is to be a powerful player in wireless with millions and millions and millions of subscribers.

As it stands, Freedom has about one million of the 30 million wireless subscriptions in Canada. The telecom regulator does not break down the number of subscribers per province, but it does state that only 10 per cent of subscriptions nationwide are not with the Big Three of Rogers Communications Inc., BCE Inc. and Telus Corp.

It might be a steep climb, but Mehr called wireless the single biggest opportunity for Shaw. Shaw plans to go the same route as Videotron, not T-Mobile, the fourth wireless player in the U.S. known for its aggressive promotions, Mehr said. While Shaw would consider going a bit further with deals in order to meet its goals, he added it will be nowhere near what T-Mobile has done.

Quebecor chief financial officer Jean-Franois Pruneau, also speaking at the forum, said the transaction with Shaw is positive since it puts spectrum in the hands of a new entrant.

Its obviously positive for the Canadian consumers because they will most likely benefit from lower prices in the future, Pruneau said. Wireless prices are lower and data caps are higher in provinces where there is a strong fourth player, such as Quebec and Saskatchewan.

Plus, Quebecor benefits from stronger competition against the Big Three, Pruneau said.

Shaws competitors are the same as our competitors. If we strengthen Shaw by giving them access to our spectrum, theres an indirect benefit for us, he said, later confirming that Videotrons objective remains to grab 25 per cent of the market.

Both companies stock prices rose on the news of the spectrum deal. Shaw increased nearly six per cent and Quebecor more than three per cent by mid-afternoon Wednesday.

Analysts also liked the transaction. Desjardins analyst Maher Yaghi increased Shaws price target to $30.50 from $30 and Quebecors to $48 from $46.50. RBC analyst Drew McReynolds raised Shaws price target to $31 from $30.

Barclays analyst Phillip Huang called the deal a win-win for the companies, but would not assume Shaw will be able to transform Freedom into Videotron 2.0 in the next fiscal year, he wrote in a note to clients. .

However, we believe the deal lifted a significant barrier (i.e. lack of spectrum) to Shaws wireless growth ambitions, and undoubtedly strengthened its long-term competitive positioning, Huang wrote.

Financial Post

ejackson@nationalpost.com

twitter.com/theemilyjackson

Go here to see the original:

'Millions and millions and millions of subscribers': Shaw's Freedom Mobile wants to grab quarter of wireless market - Financial Post

"I think many things are being done to take care of the Freedom Caucus," said state Sen. Lou DAllesandro, D-Manchester, during a break in the budget negotiations on Tuesday.

Republican leaders from the House and Senate are close to a budget deal designed to attract Freedom Caucus votes through additional cuts in spending, lower revenue estimates than either the House, the Senate or the governor have proposed up to this point, and a new tax cut.

Budget conferees continued their grinding line-by-line review of the $11.8 billion spending plan, agreeing to a projection of $4.8 billion in state-generated revenue (not counting federal funds) over the two years of the budget.

Thats $29 million lower than estimates in the Senate-passed budget and $44 million less than the governors estimates, although the committee agreed to add $13 million to the Education Trust Fund over the two years through internet sales of lottery tickets.

Conferees also agreed to include in the budget the elimination of the electricity consumption tax. Billed at a rate of 0.00055 cents per kilowatt hour, it amounts to about 33 cents on a $120 electric bill, and generates about $6 million for the state budget each year.

The conservative revenue estimates were approved despite protests from Democrats on the committee, who endorsed the projections provided by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. "The governor provided realistic estimates and these are artificially low," said Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord.

The lower revenue estimates set the stage for spending reductions demanded by members of the Freedom Caucus, whose 40 to 60 Republican votes will be essential to pass a budget without Democratic support.

Feltes said Republicans had an opportunity to win Democratic votes if they would agree to the revenue estimates submitted by Sununu, give up on a new round of business tax cuts and add about $45 million in spending, mostly to support health and human services programs.

That now seems out of the question, which means the budget that goes to the full House and Senate next week is likely to reflect additional cuts in spending.

Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, set the stage for that outcome late Monday night, when he proposed a cut in General Fund spending by $28 million in each of the two years, for a total of $56 million.

As of early Tuesday night, the conference committee had agreed to a $5 million a year college scholarship program proposed by Sununu, and an increase of $500,000 per year for domestic violence programs.

Conferees also agreed to create the Office of Child Advocate to provide third-party oversight of the Department for Children, Youth and Families, at a cost of $140,000 a year, paid for out of general funds.

Other positions approved by the committee include one new attorney to prosecute election law violations, at a cost of $75,000 in the first year and $73,000 in the second.

House negotiators conceded to the Senate on judicial branch appropriations, eliminating a new Superior Court judge but adding a new Circuit Court judge in 2019.

A new pathologist position was added to the Medical Examiners Office to help ease the backlog of drug-related cases.

The House agreed to Senate changes in the states alcohol and drug rehabilitation fund, allocating 3.4 percent of liquor commission revenues to the fund and earmarking up to $4 million for construction and operation of a drug rehabilitation wing for juveniles at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester.

State police got most of what was requested, including five more troopers for the Granite Hammer drug interdiction program in 2018. If the department can fill those positions, it can come back to the Legislative Fiscal Committee for five more in 2019.

Some of the most controversial issues, like funding for full-day kindergarten, a new round of business tax cuts and rate increases for nursing home services, remained unresolved as of early Tuesday evening, although negotiations continued into the night.

All decisions of conferees are tentative and subject to change before final approval of the compromise spending plan that will go before both chambers for a vote next week.

Union Leader Staff Writer Kevin Landrigan contributed to this report.

More:

Lawmakers move closer to state budget appealing to Freedom ... - The Union Leader

The pro-life movement receives a significant amount of criticism from pundits and commentators for not being more supportive of contraception and sex-education programs. Most pro-lifers respond by saying that any gains in contraception use will likely be offset by increases in sexual activity. This will actually result in both more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.

A strong body of empirical evidence bolsters these arguments. For instance, last week the Journal of Health Economics published a study by British academics David Paton and Liam Wright. It found that recent budget cuts in Great Britains sex-education program were correlated with statistically significant reductions in both the teen-pregnancy rate and the teen abortion rate.

Some background is important. During the 1990s, teen-pregnancy rates in Great Britain were double those of most Western European countries. As a result, in 1999 the British government launched its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy program to promote both sex education and birth control. Some 300 million ($454 million) was spent on this initiative. However, Britains teen-pregnancy rate and teen abortion rate remained relatively constant between 1999 and 2008.

During this time, local governments were required to use Teen Pregnancy Strategy grants to fund sex-education and contraception programs. However, during the 2008 economic downturn, this requirement was removed and then these grants were ended altogether during the 20102011 fiscal year. Afterward, public-health projects were funded through a general grant from the central government. Spending on teen-pregnancy programs fell sharply, and teens pregnancy and abortion rates each fell by over 40 percent between 2008 and 2014.

More importantly, these policy changes gave local governments considerably more freedom about how much money to spend on sex-education and contraception programs. Because of the economic slowdown, most localities decided to enact spending reductions, but there was considerable variation regarding the timing and magnitude of these cuts. Paton and Wright nicely use this variation to analyze how spending on contraception and sex-education programs affect pregnancy and abortion rates among teens at the local level.

Their study is methodologically rigorous. The authors analyze teens abortion and pregnancy rates in 149 localities for every year between 2009 and 2014. They hold constant a range of demographic, economic, and political variables. As an additional control they even run a set of regressions where they compare teen-pregnancy rates with adult pregnancy rates. The results from a range of regression models are consistent: Large cuts in contraception and sex-education programs were correlated with larger reductions in teens abortion and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, the correlations were statistically significant.

This study adds to an impressive body of research showing that programs to encourage contraception among teenagers are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. For instance, last year two Notre Dame economists found that 1990s condom-distribution programs in U.S. high schools actually increased the teen fertility rate. A 2011 University of Michigan study found that significant increases in the price of oral contraceptives at campus health centers failed to have a significant impact on unintended-pregnancy rates.

That said, even though this article has interesting findings and appeared in a top academic journal, it has received extremely little mainstream-media coverage. So far, it has received some coverage from the London Times, the UK Daily Mail, and some conservative and Christian outlets here in the United States. Once again, the mainstream media eagerly touts any research that purportedly shows the public-health benefits of contraception programs, while scholarly criticism of such programs is ignored.

Michael J. New is a visiting associate professor at Ave Maria University and an associate scholar with the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Read more:

Teen Contraception Programs Are Counterproductive - National Review

Jim DeMint is the Forrest Gump of the Tea Party. He's been everywhere from the halls of Congress to the beating heart of the modern conservative movement at the Heritage Foundation. But after the better part of two decades, DeMint says it's all for naught.

"I've finally realized the most important truth of our time," DeMint said in a Monday press release. "Washington, D.C. will never fix itself." And so with that mindset, the fiery former South Carolina senator and Heritage president got himself a new job.

DeMint just signed on with the Convention of the States Project as a senior advisor. His goal is nothing short of redrafting the Constitution.

"I tried to rein in Washington from inside the House and Senate, then by starting the Senate Conservatives Fund to elect good conservatives, and finally as President of the Heritage Foundation, creating and promoting good, conservative policy," DeMint said.

"But once I realized that Washington will never willingly return decision-making power back to the American people and the states, I began to search for another way to restrain the federal government," DeMint continued.

Frustrated with the standard political approach, DeMint has turned to Article V of the Constitution. He wants to call a Convention of the States to ratify amendments imposing fiscal restraints and term limits on the federal government. Calling another constitutional convention, the first since 1787, DeMint said "is the only solution."

And this is an important shift that shouldn't be missed. DeMint is now dismissing every single conservative political gain, many of which he helped pioneer, as negligible, even those that occurred while he was at the helm of the Heritage Foundation.

Conservatives like DeMint gave Republicans the House in 2010 and then the Senate in 2014. He helped shepherd conservatives like Sen. Mike Lee of Utah into office before nurturing the House Freedom Caucus. And perhaps no other man is more responsible for igniting the anti-establishment blaze that fueled the campaign of our current populist president.

Apparently, none of that mattered. The political parties in Washington have changed, the thinking goes, but the policies haven't.

If that cynicism sounds unmerited, consider the particularly brutal defenestration DeMint just endured at Heritage. After leading the group for four years, he was axed by his allies and unceremoniously kicked out the door in a particularly heartless statement.

A month after that bloodletting though, the think tank appears to be taking a softer line. While Heritage President Ed Feulner has always spoken warmly of DeMint, he took special care to offer his best wishes.

"Throughout his career, Jim DeMint has been a tireless fighter on behalf of conservative beliefs," Feulner told the Washington Examiner. "In his new role, I have no doubt he will remain an active and critical leader within the conservative movement."

More than likely, DeMint's work with the Convention of the States probably amounts to a side hustle. But regardless of what he decides to do full-time, it's clear DeMint has become disillusioned.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read the original here:

Jim DeMint says Washington 'will never fix itself' - Washington Examiner

Last Friday (June 9) was Tax Freedom Day, marking the day the average Canadian family has made enough income to pay all its taxes for this year, according to the Fraser Institute.

If families had to pay its total tax bill up front, they would have worked until June 8 to pay the total tax bill imposed on them by all three levels of government. Its not until June 9 that families start working for themselves, not the government, according to the institute.

"Tax Freedom Day helps put the total tax burden into perspective and helps Canadians understand just how much of their money they pay in taxes every year," said Charles Lammam, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

It comes a day later this year, as the average familys taxes are expected to increase at a faster rate this year (2.4%) compared with income growth (2.2%).

The institute used $108,674 as the average annual household income for its calculations and found that families will pay, on average $47,135, in total taxes. This is compared with respective figures of $105,236 and $45,167 reported last year.

That's 43.4% of its annual income going to income taxes, payroll taxes, health taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, and "sin" taxes like alcohol and tobacco.

"It's difficult for average Canadians to add up all the taxes they pay in a year because the different levels of government levy such a wide range of taxes, said Lammam.

That's why we do these calculations to give Canadians a better understanding of exactly how much they pay to government."

syoon@biv.com

See original here:

Tax Freedom Day comes a day later this year due to inflation: Fraser Institute - Business in Vancouver

RALEIGH I am a teetotaler who believes that my fellow North Carolinians should be free to buy and consume the alcoholic beverages of their choice from the vendors of their choice.

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Their Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

The wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers, up from the current annual limit of one bottle. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit (which is why the legislation is known as the brunch bill). It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunk driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve more respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. As the family historian, Ive chronicled numerous cases. The great-uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunk driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous, and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

The John Locke Foundation

See the original post:

John Hood: Teetotaler says alcohol laws too restrictive - Winston-Salem Journal

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review Forbes In more detail, how many people are employed inside the US economy depends upon the monetary policy (from the Fed) and the fiscal policy (when we have one, from Congress) in place in the US economy. ... Then there's this about freedom and liberty:.

Read the rest here:

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review - Forbes