Tag: taxes

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America oppose pretty much every big government plan being pushed by Bernie Sanders but they welcome his honesty that big tax hikes will be required to pay for his agenda. They also cringe as Department of Energy tarnishes a wonderful program to become a more prominent supplier of natural gas to other nations by referring to the gas as “molecules of freedom.” And Jim and Greg discuss Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to confirm a Supreme Court nominee if a vacancy opens up in 2020.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Should We Tax Facebook and Google So They Change Their Business Models?


Paul Romer.
Is Big Tech today as dangerous as Big Money a decade ago? Economist and Nobel laureate Paul Romer seems to think there are disturbing similarities. In a New York Times op-ed, Romer advocates taxing revenue from the sales of targeted digital ads to check the size and power of “dominate digital platforms,” specifically Facebook and Google. “Our digital platforms may not be too big to fail,” he writes. “But they are too big to trust.” Romer’s policy goal is to nudge these companies away from the original sin of advertising-driven business models, and Romer sees a Pigovian tax as a more efficient way to reduce their size and influence than antitrust or regulation. He doesn’t like targeted ads, nor the financial power they generate.

Romer’s approach toward Big Tech might sound familiar to anyone who followed the post-Financial Crisis debate about Wall Street and “too big to fail.” Among the policy options for taming the megabanks and de-risking their business models were regulation, antitrust, or higher capital requirements. That last one, advocates argued, was the most efficient and market-friendly way of making failure less likely, potentially serving as a de facto tax on bigness, or even spurring a self-initiated breakup.

Member Post


Happy one-year anniversary of Cardi B’s-surprisingly-conservative-insights-on-government-spending Day: (warning for language, edited out only partially in this version of the clip) Read More View Post

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post


Enter the amount from line 3 above on line 1 of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gain Tax Worksheet or Schedule D Tax Worksheet if you use either of those worksheets to figure the tax on line 4 above. Complete the rest of that worksheet through line 6 (line 10 if you use the Schedule […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America congratulate Benjamin Netanyahu on winning his fifth election for Prime Minister of Israel and hope the warm relations between the country and the US will continue. They also look forward to the investigation into how the Russian probe began after Attorney General William Barr promised an inquiry into the matter while testifying before Congress. And they worry about poor Republican messaging after most of the country thinks the tax cuts hurt them because they got a small refund this year, despite the significant decrease in money being withheld from paychecks in the first place.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Hottest Tax Ideas on the Left Are Really Bold. Does It Matter That They’re Also Really Bad?


Policy wonks have a soft spot for bold ideas. Doubly so if those ideas are new or making a comeback after years in the wilderness. The New York Times columnist David Leonhardt recently heaped much praise on presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren for her “bold” and “ambitious” agenda that’s appropriate “to the scale of our challenges.”

Voters are no different. Plenty of folks on the left seem giddy about the idea of a “Green New Deal” that would put the US economy on a war footing against climate change. And it’s not just Democrats and progressives. Many on the right fondly recall how Ronald Reagan in the 1970s said Republicans should raise ”a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.”

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome a Politico report showing that even if liberals soaked “the rich” they wouldn’t come anywhere close to paying for single-payer health care or the Green New Deal. They also shake their heads as testimony from former FBI attorney Lisa Page suggests the FBI was considering whether to recommend a federal charge against Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified emails but the Justice Department made it clear it had no intention of pursuing the case. And Jim offers his hilarious assessment of climate change activists refusing to have children until the world gets serious about climate change.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley’s decision to not run in 2020 but ask if his announcement was really necessary since very few Americans have any idea who he is. They also take a deep breath of fresh air as Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw gives a clear and calm defense of conservative principles that is often missing from our public dialogue. And Jim notes the Clinton era ends in a whimper as Hillary officially states that she will not run for president in 2020.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome the news that tax refunds are now slightly outpacing the amounts issued last year by the IRS. They also examine the record of the latest Democrat to run for president – former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper – and whether he has any path to victory. And they get a kick out of New York Sen. Gillbrand insisting she’s not a flip-flopper after running for Congress as a moderate Democrat and now running for president as a ardent progressive.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud the Washington Post for calling out California Sen. Kamala Harris for her absurd contention that smaller tax refunds mean you’re paying more in taxes. They also play the entire insane questioning of longtime foreign policy official Elliott Abrams by Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and marvel at her ignorance of U.S. history and bizarre badgering of the witness. And they get a kick both out of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planning a floor vote on the Green New Deal and bill sponsor Ed Markey fuming that Republicans are going to hold a vote on his legislation.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Toxic Warren Wealth Tax


In my lastcolumn, I explained how Senator Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax violates well-established constitutional limits on income and transfer taxes. Ever since the Sixteenth Amendment legalized the income tax, all taxes on income have been based on some fraction of the amount earned within a given year. And all taxes on capital are imposed only once, namely at their transfer during life or upon death. In contrast, the Warren wealth tax would be imposed annually on all forms of wealth at rates that start at 2 percent for households whose net worth is between $50 million and $1 billion, and 3 percent for households who hold amounts of wealth in excess of $1 billion. The tax applies in both rich and lean years, whether a person makes or loses money.

To defend this dubious scheme on economic grounds, Warren, now a presidential aspirant, relies on a letter prepared by two prominent economists from Berkeley, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both experts on the economics of inequality. Indeed, it is just there that the problems begin, for any fixation with equality or, as Saez and Zucman call it, equitable growth, rests on shaky premises.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are still shaking their heads over the political chaos in Virginia, but they are happy to see a weakened Gov. Ralph Northam give Republicans most of what they want on tax relief. They also point out some of the most insane provisions included in the Green New Deal, proving how out of touch the socialists in the Democratic Party really are. And they shudder as former KKK official David Duke endorses Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for president because he thinks Gabbard is least likely to send troops to die on behalf of Israel in the Middle East. Gabbard has denounced Duke and rejected the endorsement.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Looking at the Economic Risks from Much Higher Taxes


Nearly doubling top tax rates is hardly a risk-free policy proposal. Of course that is not the impression being given by some policymakers pushing the idea. But even a cursory survey of economic opinion reveals big tax hikes come with trade-offs, just like pretty much any other policy idea.

For instance: A recent UChicago-IGM Forum survey found that 63 percent of economists surveyed (with responses weighted by each scholars confidence level) “disagreed” (52 percent) or “strongly disagreed” (11 percent) with the notion that a 70 percent top rate “would raise substantially more revenue … without lowering economic activity.” On the other side, 17 percent “agreed” and 4 percent “disagreed.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Elizabeth Warren’s Unconstitutional Wealth Grab


As part of her populist presidential campaign, Senator Elizabeth Warren has unveiled a proposal for an annual wealth tax of 2 percent for ultra-rich families whose net worth is between $50 million and $1 billion. That tax would increase to 3 percent for families whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. The tax is on top of many other taxes to which such a family would be subject, including, presumably, the progressive ideal of a 70 percent income tax as well as state and local taxes. The wealth tax would even apply to people whose net worth has declined during the past year so long as they remain above the stated threshold. Cumulative taxes could easily exceed 100 percent of income. That result is not an unanticipated bug but rather an essential feature: Warren wants to mandate greater income equality through tax policy, even if it means leveling down, not up.

In a future column, I shall address the economic ramifications of this proposal. But for now, I turn to the question of the constitutionality of this novel wealth tax. On that topic, Senator Warren offers in support two short letters signed by sixteen prominent American constitutional law scholars that vouch for the constitutionality of her plan.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America see a teachable moment as New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo blames President Trump and the GOP tax reform for many wealthy people leaving his state over high taxes, but the solution would seem to be pretty simple. They’re also surprised to see 50 percent of Democratic voters in Virginia approving of Ralph Northam as governor – even after the yearbook controversy. And they react to the accuser of Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax hiring Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Elizabeth Warren’s Theory of America’s ‘Freeloading’ Billionaires


Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she wants “billionaires to stop being freeloaders.” It’s a statement akin to the idea that billionaires need to “give back” to society. Which is not how I immediately think about the wealth inequality issue. Surely Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates didn’t begin to “give back” or generate value for society only when he began “giving back” via the Gates Foundation to boost education and reduce global poverty. Society benefited from his role in revolutionizing home computing, generating massive wealth for retirement plans everywhere, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs over the decades.

Oh, and Gates became superrich in the process. And he should pay taxes. Lots of them. Does he or other wealthy Americans pay anywhere near enough? Warren and many Democrats don’t seem to think so, (although paying for new spending does seem to be the primary concern here). Thus the talk of a wealth tax or a higher top income tax rate. There’s less talk on the left, however, of possible tradeoffs from such ideas. A wealth tax would certainly be a theoretically powerful — though difficult to administer and possibly unconstitutional — way to break up or diminish concentrated wealth. (Many nations that have tried them have since abandoned them.) But there is another side of the story. My AEI colleague Alan Viard notes that wealth taxes of the sort Warren advocates “would be a drain on the pool of American savings, [which] finance the business investment that in turn drives future growth of the economy and living standards of workers.” Something to consider at a time when the American economy faces historically low economic growth due to demographics and low productivity.

Alexandra DeSanctis of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching Howard Schultz and Elizabeth Warren trade insults over Warren’s proposed wealth tax and shudder to think that Schultz might be the most sensible liberal considering a 2020 presidential run. They also slam Kamala Harris for suggesting that lawmakers who don’t support gun control don’t care about the victims of mass shootings and contending that if Republicans saw photos of murdered children that they would vote differently. And they laugh and cringe as the chairwoman of a California State Senate committee bans the use of gendered pronouns in committee – and then proceeds to violate her own rule over and over again.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America get a kick out of CNN commentator Areva Martin telling radio host David Webb his success is a result of white privilege – until Webb tells her he is black. They’re also aghast as 59 percent of registered voters support a 70 percent marginal tax rate on the nation’s highest earners, including 45 percent of Republicans. And they shake their heads as Beto O’Rourke openly wonders whether our “empire” can “still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago.”