ReportWire

Tag: Corporate taxes

  • Editorial | Mamdani needs to hold off on the tax talk – amNewYork

    [ad_1]

    Gov Hochul (left ) and Mayor Zohran Mamdani (Right) visited several pre-schoolers at a YMCA in Flatbush, Brooklyn on Thursday, January 8.

    Photo by Lloyd Mitchell

    New York City and Mayor Zohran Mamdani find themselves in deep economic water. The city is staring at a $12 billion budget hole that must be filled by June 30, a massive economic challenge for any mayor, let alone one on the job for just 22 days like Mamdani.

    Without question, a deficit of this size will hinder Mamdani’s ability to realize much of the affordability agenda that propelled him to the highest office in New York City last year. Closing a massive deficit in New York requires a delicate budget dance that ensures a responsible, balanced budget without taking the meat ax to crucial public services that keep the city going and the people safe.

    If he had it his way, Mamdani would institute a tax increase on the wealthiest New Yorkers, as he promised to do during his mayoral campaign in 2025. Anyone making more than a million dollars annually would be affected by such a tax increase; the mayor says a 2% increase in income would generate $4 billion in new city revenue. A similar increase in corporate taxes would raise another billion dollars for the city.

    In any case, none of that combined $5 billion in revenue would be enough to close the $12 billion deficit, indicating that other measures to balance the budget must be considered.

    There’s just one problem for the mayor, and one salvation for those who would otherwise feel the pinch of higher taxes: Tax increases are the responsibility of the state government. Neither the mayor nor the City Council has such authority.

    Gov. Kathy Hochul, meanwhile, has said for months that she would oppose tax increases. Facing re-election herself this year, tax increases of any kind — even on the wealthiest New Yorkers — risk major political blowback. It would hand ammunition for her opponents to use to poke holes at her own affordability agenda.

    But Hochul has shown Mamdani and the city a path forward through her executive budget, rolled out Tuesday. Her state budget is massive, $260 billion, but it is balanced; it makes up for federal cutbacks without compromising on major services. And most importantly, the spending plan does not include personal income tax increases.

    Despite what Mamdani and those on the far left who shout “tax the rich” every chance they get believe, the fact is that tax increases on anyone, regardless of income or status, ought to be the very last resort for government. Those with the means to avoid tax increases will either find a loophole around them or pull their business out of New York entirely. If that happens, the average taxpayer will be left holding the budget deficit bag.

    Any responsible executive must first pursue every possible avenue to balance the budget while retaining all necessary services without asking taxpayers to contribute more. 

    No one wants an “austerity budget,” as Mamdani said Tuesday, that cuts essential services to the bone. But no one wants to pay more, either. It’s his responsibility as the mayor to do everything he can in order to avoid such cuts, and only pursue a tax increase if every other path is not viable. 

    [ad_2]

    amNewYork

    Source link

  • I’m an Economist: Here Are My Predictions for the Job Market If Biden Wins Again

    I’m an Economist: Here Are My Predictions for the Job Market If Biden Wins Again

    [ad_1]

    Matt Smith Photographer / Shutterstock.com

    By all accounts, the 2024 presidential election will have major implications. If President Joe Biden wins again, it will have a big impact on jobs and the economy in the U.S. Biden and his team will make decisions that could change how many jobs are available, how much people get paid and how easy it is for businesses to hire people.

    We spoke to David Kass, clinical professor of finance at the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business, to get his predictions on what a Biden win could mean for jobs.

    Also here’s how a Biden win could affect inflation.

    See More: I’m an Economist: Here’s My Prediction for Social Security If Biden Wins the 2024 Election

    Discover Next: 4 Genius Things All Wealthy People Do With Their Money

    Wealthy people know the best money secrets. Learn how to copy them.

    Tax Policy Changes

    A major priority for Biden in a potential second term would be addressing the nation’s rising budget deficit. According to Kass, one of the things Biden might do is let a law called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) expire. This legislation, which is currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and lowered the top personal tax rate from 39.6% to 37%.

    Biden may also propose to Congress “that the corporate income tax be increased from 21% to 28%,” Kass said.

    Increasing corporate taxes could help generate revenue to fund federal investments in areas like infrastructure or clean energy, potentially stimulating job growth. It’s also possible that higher corporate taxes could have an effect on job creation, if businesses are facing higher costs. In this case, companies might need to reevaluate their operations.

    Kass also said that Biden would probably allow the TCJA’s “tax cuts for high income individuals to sunset at the end of 2025.”

    Biden has already stated his intention to ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. He said that many wealthy Americans pay a lower average tax rate than “firefighters or teachers” and that he intends to close such loopholes.

    Opponents of these tax increases argue that so-called “trickle down economics” creates jobs and economic competitiveness. But proponents say that the additional revenue could fund crucial programs, such as Medicare.

    Find Out: How Much Is President Joe Biden Worth As He Seeks Reelection?

    Managing Inflation and Interest Rates

    Managing inflation and interest rates will be another critical aspect of Biden’s economic strategy. Kass said that Biden would likely take a hands-off approach toward the Federal Reserve and let them do their best to keep inflation low without intervention on his part. This could come at the cost of higher unemployment, however.

    “He also would not apply any pressure on the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates,” Kass said, “as they strive to bring inflation down to their 2% target.”

    “The resulting reduction in both monetary and fiscal stimulus should result in inflation being contained in the 2 to 3% range, but unemployment likely moving higher from the current 3 to 4% range to 4 to 5%,” he said.

    If interest rates get too high, businesses may react with a hiring freeze or may even cut jobs from their payrolls, Kass said. But the Federal Reserve would also react to try to control unemployment.

    “If the unemployment rate exceeded 4.5%, the Federal Reserve would likely respond by lowering interest rates to provide monetary stimulus to the economy and stabilizing or reducing the unemployment rate,” he said.

    This potential seesaw between battling inflation and supporting employment could create a lot of uncertainty for businesses trying to plan ahead.

    More From GOBankingRates

    This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: I’m an Economist: Here Are My Predictions for the Job Market If Biden Wins Again

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false claims about the debt and deficit in jobs speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false claims about the debt and deficit in jobs speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    During a Friday speech about the September jobs report, President Joe Biden delivered a rapid-fire series of three false or misleading claims – falsely saying that he has cut the debt, falsely crediting a tax policy that didn’t take effect until 2023 for improving the budget situation in 2021 and 2022, and misleadingly saying that he has presided over an “actual surplus.”

    At a separate moment of the speech, Biden used outdated figures to boast of setting record lows in the unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics and people with disabilities. While the rates for these three groups hit record lows earlier in his presidency, he didn’t acknowledge that they have all since increased to non-record levels – and, in fact, are now higher than they were during parts of Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Here’s a fact check.

    Biden said in the Friday speech that Republicans want to “cut taxes for the very wealthy and big corporations,” which would add to the deficit. That’s fair game.

    But then he added: “I was able to cut the federal debt by $1.7 trillion over the first two-and-a – two years. Well remember what we talked about. Those 50 corporations that made $40 billion, weren’t paying a penny in taxes? Well guess what – we made them pay 30%. Uh, 15% in taxes – 15%. Nowhere near what they should pay. And guess what? We were able to pay for everything, and we end up with an actual surplus.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims were thoroughly inaccurate. First, he has not cut the federal debt, which has increased by more than $5.7 trillion during his presidency so far after rising about $7.8 trillion during Trump’s full four-year tenure; it is the budget deficit (the one-year difference between spending and revenues), not the national debt (the accumulation of federal borrowing plus interest owed), that fell by $1.7 trillion over his first two fiscal years in office. Second, Biden’s 15% corporate minimum tax on certain large profitable corporations did not take effect until the first day of 2023, so it could not possibly have been responsible for the deficit reduction in fiscal 2021 and 2022. Third, there is no “actual surplus”; the federal government continues to run a budget deficit well over $1 trillion.

    CNN has previously debunked Biden’s false claims about supposedly having cut the “debt” and about the new corporate minimum tax supposedly being responsible for deficit reduction in 2021 and 2022. The White House, which declined to comment on the record for this article, has corrected previous official transcripts when Biden has claimed that the debt fell by $1.7 trillion, acknowledging that he should have said deficit.

    As for Biden’s vague additional claim that “we end up with an actual surplus,” a White House official said Friday that the president was referring to how the particular law in which the new minimum tax was contained, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, is projected to reduce the deficit. But Biden did not explain this unusual-at-best use of “surplus” – and since he had just been talking about the overall budget picture, he certainly made it sound like he was claiming to have presided over a surplus in the overall budget. He has not done so.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, said in response to the White House explanation: “Well he didn’t say ‘budget surplus’ I suppose. But in federal budget conversations, the word surplus has a very specific meaning. It doesn’t mean ‘additional,’ it means revenues exceed spending.” He noted earlier Friday that there hasn’t been a federal budget surplus since 2001.

    It’s worth noting, as we have before, that Biden’s Friday comments would be missing key context even if he had not inaccurately replaced the word “deficit” with “debt.” It’s highly questionable how much credit Biden himself deserves for the decline in the deficit in 2021 and 2022. Independent analysts say it occurred largely because emergency Covid-19 relief spending from fiscal 2020 expired as scheduled – and that Biden’s own new laws and executive actions have significantly added to current and projected future deficits. In addition, the 2023 deficit is widely expected to be higher than the 2022 deficit.

    More on the corporate minimum tax

    When Biden spoke Friday about “those 50 corporations that made $40 billion, weren’t paying a penny in taxes,” he was referring, as he has in the past, to an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis published in 2021 that listed 55 companies the think tank found had paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year.

    But it was imprecise, at best, for Biden to say Friday that we made “them” pay 15% in taxes. That’s because the new 15% minimum tax applies only to companies that have an average annual financial statement income of $1 billion or more – there are lots of nuances involved; you can read more details here – and only 14 of the 55 companies on the think tank’s list reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion. In other words, some large and profitable companies will not be hit with the tax.

    The federal government’s nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation projected last year that the tax would shrink deficits by about $222 billion through 2031, with positive impacts beginning in 2023. Gardner said Friday that he fully expects the tax to play a role in reducing deficits going forward, but he said its deficit-reducing impact “might be lower than expected” in 2023 because the Treasury Department – which has been the subject of intense lobbying from corporations that could be affected – has taken so long to implement the details of the law that the Internal Revenue Service ended up waiving penalties on companies that don’t make estimated tax payments on it this year.

    Regardless, Gardner said, “The minimum tax did not reduce the deficit at all in fiscal years 2021 or 2022 because it didn’t exist during those years.”

    Early in the Friday speech, Biden boasted of statistics from the September jobs report that was released earlier in the day. But then he said, “We’ve achieved a 70-year low in unemployment rate for women, record lows in unemployment for African Americans and Hispanic workers, and people with disabilities – folks who’ve been left behind in previous recoveries and left behind for too long.”

    Facts First: Three of these four Biden unemployment boasts are misleading because they are out of date. Only his claim about a 70-year low for women’s unemployment remains current. While the unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanics and people with disabilities did fall to record lows earlier in Biden’s presidency, they have since increased – to rates higher than the rates during various periods of the Trump administration.

    Women: The seasonally adjusted women’s unemployment rate was 3.4% in September. That’s a tick upward from the 3.3% rate during two previous months of 2023, but it’s still tied – with two months of the Trump administration – for the lowest for this group since 1953, 70 years ago.

    African Americans: The seasonally adjusted Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in September, up from the record low of 4.7% in April. The current 5.7% rate is higher than this group’s rates during four months of 2019, under Trump.

    Hispanics: The seasonally adjusted Hispanic unemployment rate was 4.6% in September, up from the record low of 3.9% from September 2022. The current 4.6% rate is higher than this group’s rates for every month from April 2019 through February 2020 under Trump, plus a smattering of prior Trump-era months.

    People with disabilities: The unemployment rate for people with disabilities, ages 16 and up, was 7.3% in September, up from a record low of 5.0% in December 2022. (The figures only go back to 2008, so the record was for a period of less than two decades.) The current 7.3% rate is higher than this group’s rates during eight months of the Trump presidency, seven of them in 2019.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 10 Important Tax Numbers Every Business Owner Should Know to Save | Entrepreneur

    10 Important Tax Numbers Every Business Owner Should Know to Save | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    I’m a certified public accountant but my firm doesn’t prepare tax returns. However, I’m also a business owner. This means, like my best clients, I pay close attention to my taxes. Why? Because for a business owner, taxes are usually one of our biggest expenses. If you’re running a business, these are 10 federal tax numbers that are very important for all of us in 2023.

    $160,200

    This is the maximum amount of wages that can be taxed for social security (FICA) benefits at 6.2% (the 1.45% Medicare tax has no limit). Any wages paid over this amount are not subject to the FICA tax — employee or employer. This is important because if you raise an employee’s compensation above this amount, they’re receiving an added tax benefit which should be part of your salary considerations this year.

    Related: These Are the Top Tax Filing Mistakes Made by Small Business Owners (and How to Avoid Them)

    $6,500

    This is the amount you can contribute to an individual Roth IRA account. Roth IRAs often get ignored by my clients but they’re a fantastic way to put after-tax money away and watch it grow tax-free with no penalties or additional taxes on withdrawal. Because the stock market is down, I have a number of older clients taking distributions from their 401(k)s, paying the tax on a lower capital gain, and then transitioning those amounts to a Roth where the amounts are never taxed again. Everyone should be putting money into a Roth IRA.

    $7,500

    This is an added “catch-up” contribution that can be made to your 401(k) account if you’re over the age of 50 — which means that more than half of business owners in the U.S. are probably eligible. There’s also a $1,000 catch-up for individual IRAs for people in this age group. Thanks to the recently passed Secure 2.0, the 401(k) catch-up amount is going to rise to as much as $10,000 annually for those between the ages of 60 and 63 starting in 2025 and will then be adjusted for inflation each year.

    $66,000

    That’s the amount that can be contributed to a 401(k) plan this year which includes both employer and employee contributions and does not include any “catch-up” contributions. This amount is limited to your income and discrimination tests (see below).

    $150,000

    That’s the amount of compensation that defines a “highly compensated employee.” This is important because the number of people you have in your 401(k) retirement plan that earns over this amount will figure into your plan’s year-end discrimination testing and that may limit the amount you — and they — can save. The takeaway: The more employees —particularly non-highly compensated employees — that contribute to your 401(k) plan, the more you can contribute.

    Related: 3 Ways to Save Money on Taxes That Most Entrepreneurs Miss

    $0.655

    That’s the IRS-reimbursable mileage rate for 2023 and it changes every year based on the fluctuating costs of operating a vehicle. This is important because you can reimburse your employee for any miles traveled above the commute to your office (for example to a customer) and you’ll get a tax deduction — and the amount won’t be taxable to them. This is potentially a great added benefit to provide for your staff, particularly in these times of high gas costs.

    $300

    This is the amount you can pay your employees each month to reimburse for their commuting expenses. You’ll get a deduction and they won’t be taxed. If an employee drives to work, you can also pay them $300 to reimburse for their parking expenses with the same tax treatment. It’s another benefit to consider and could be a helpful enticement to get your people back into the office more often.

    $1,160,000

    That’s the maximum Section 179 deduction you can take this year for the acquisition of capital assets. This applies to both new and used assets like capital equipment, machinery, furniture and most computer software. There are “bonus” depreciation deductions that your business can take in addition to the Section 179 amounts. You can even finance these purchases and get these deductions — just make sure they’re “in service” by year-end.

    $12,920,000

    That’s the individual federal estate lifetime tax exemption which means that a married couple can leave more than $25 million of their assets upon their deaths tax-free to the beneficiaries. After that, most transfers of assets will be taxed at 40%. This exemption gets reduced to $7,000,000 individually in 2026.

    $17,000

    This is the amount you can gift this year and the recipient won’t be taxed. This is in addition to the lifetime addition above and applies to anyone, not just family members.

    You know what’s coming next, right? It’s the usual caveat where I write that your situation may be unique and you should always consult your tax professional before making any decisions based on the above numbers.

    [ad_2]

    Gene Marks

    Source link

  • Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Biden makes false and misleading claims in economic speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden delivered a Thursday speech to hail economic progress during his administration and to attack congressional Republicans for their proposals on the economy and the social safety net.

    Some of Biden’s claims in the speech were false, misleading or lacking critical context, though others were correct. Here’s a breakdown of the 14 claims CNN fact-checked.

    Touting the bipartisan infrastructure law he signed in 2021, Biden said, “Last year, we funded 700,000 major construction projects – 700,000 all across America. From highways to airports to bridges to tunnels to broadband.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “700,000” figure is wildly inaccurate; it adds an extra two zeros to the correct figure Biden used in a speech last week and the White House has also used before: 7,000 projects. The White House acknowledged his misstatement later on Thursday by correcting the official transcript to say 7,000 rather than 700,000.

    Biden said, “Well, here’s the deal: I put a – we put a cap, and it’s now in effect – now in effect, as of January 1 – of $2,000 a year on prescription drug costs for seniors.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims that this cap is now in effect and that it came into effect on January 1 are false. The $2,000 annual cap contained in the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed last year – on Medicare Part D enrollees’ out-of-pocket spending on covered prescription drugs – takes effect in 2025. The maximum may be higher than $2,000 in subsequent years, since it is tied to Medicare Part D’s per capita costs.

    Asked for comment, a White House official noted that other Inflation Reduction Act health care provisions that will save Americans money did indeed come into effect on January 1, 2023.

    – CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this item.

    Criticizing former President Donald Trump over his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, Biden said, “Back then, only 3.5 million people had been – even had their first vaccination, because the other guy and the other team didn’t think it mattered a whole lot.”

    Facts First: Biden is free to criticize Trump’s vaccine rollout, but his “only 3.5 million” figure is misleading at best. As of the day Trump left office in January 2021, about 19 million people had received a first shot of a Covid-19 vaccine, according to figures published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The “3.5 million” figure Biden cited is, in reality, the number of people at the time who had received two shots to complete their primary vaccination series.

    Someone could perhaps try to argue that completing a primary series is what Biden meant by “had their first vaccination” – but he used a different term, “fully vaccinated,” to refer to the roughly 230 million people in that very same group today. His contrasting language made it sound like there are 230 million people with at least two shots today versus 3.5 million people with just one shot when he took office. That isn’t true.

    Biden said Republicans want to cut taxes for billionaires, “who pay virtually only 3% of their income now – 3%, they pay.”

    Facts First: Biden’s “3%” claim is incorrect. For the second time in less than a week, Biden inaccurately described a 2021 finding from economists in his administration that the wealthiest 400 billionaire families paid an average of 8.2% of their income in federal individual income taxes between 2010 and 2018; after CNN inquired about Biden’s “3%” claim on Thursday, the White House published a corrected official transcript that uses “8%” instead. Also, it’s important to note that even that 8% number is contested, since it is an alternative calculation that includes unrealized capital gains that are not treated as taxable income under federal law.

    “Biden’s numbers are way too low,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute think tank, though Gleckman also said we don’t know precisely what tax rates billionaires do pay. Gleckman wrote in an email: “In 2019, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabe Zucman estimated the top 400 households paid an average effective tax rate of about 23 percent in 2018. They got a lot of attention at the time because that rate was lower than the average rate of 24 percent for the bottom half of the income distribution. But it still was way more than 2 or 3, or even 8 percent.”

    Biden has cited the 8% statistic in various other speeches, but unlike the administration economists who came up with it, he tends not to explain that it doesn’t describe tax rates in a conventional way. And regardless, he said “3%” in this speech and “2%” in a speech last week.

    Biden cited a 2021 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy think tank that found that 55 of the country’s largest corporations had made $40 billion in profit in their previous fiscal year but not paid any federal corporate income taxes. Before touting the 15% alternative corporate minimum tax he signed into law in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, Biden said, “The days are over when corporations are paying zero in federal taxes.”

    Facts First: Biden exaggerated. The new minimum tax will reduce the number of companies that don’t pay any federal taxes, but it’s not true that the days of companies paying zero are “over.” That’s because the minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, only 14 of the companies on its 2021 list of 55 non-payers reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion.

    In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect this year. The exact number is not yet known.

    Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told CNN in the fall that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

    There are lots of nuances to the tax; you can read more specifics here. Asked for comment on Thursday, a White House official told CNN: “The Inflation Reduction Act ensures the wealthiest corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, precisely the corporations the President focused on during the campaign and in office. The President’s full Made in America tax plan would ensure all corporations pay a 15% minimum tax, and the President has called on Congress to pass that plan.”

    Noting the big increase in the federal debt under Trump, Biden said that his administration has taken a “different path” and boasted: “As a result, the last two years – my administration – we cut the deficit by $1.7 trillion, the largest reduction in debt in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.

    Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, wrote in September that Biden’s actions will add more than $4.8 trillion to deficits from 2021 through 2031, or $2.5 trillion if you don’t count the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill of 2021.

    National Economic Council director Brian Deese wrote on the White House website last week that the American Rescue Plan pandemic relief bill “facilitated a strong economic recovery and enabled the responsible wind-down of emergency spending programs,” thereby reducing the deficit; David Kelly, chief global strategist at J.P. Morgan Funds, told Egan in October that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the recovery that has pushed the deficit downward. And Deese correctly noted that Biden’s signature legislation, last year’s Inflation Reduction Act, is expected to bring down deficits by more than $200 billion over the next decade.

    Still, the deficit-reducing impact of that one bill is expected to be swamped by the deficit-increasing impact of various additional bills and policies Biden has approved.

    Biden said, “Wages are up, and they’re growing faster than inflation. Over the past six months, inflation has gone down every month and, God willing, will continue to do that.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim that wages are up and growing faster than inflation is true if you start the calculation seven months ago; “real” wages, which take inflation into account, started rising in mid-2022 as inflation slowed. (Biden is right that inflation has declined, on an annual basis, every month for the last six months.) However, real wages are lower today than they were both a full year ago and at the beginning of Biden’s presidency in January 2021. That’s because inflation was so high in 2021 and the beginning of 2022.

    There are various ways to measure real wages. Real average hourly earnings declined 1.7% between December 2021 and December 2022, while real average weekly earnings (which factors in the number of hours people worked) declined 3.1% over that period.

    Biden said he was disappointed that the first bill passed by the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives “added $114 billion to the deficit.”

    Facts First: Biden is correct about how the bill would affect the deficit if it became law. He accurately cited an estimate from the government’s nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    The bill would eliminate more than $71 billion of the $80 billion in additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that Biden signed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Congressional Budget Office found that taking away this funding – some of which the Biden administration said will go toward increased audits of high-income individuals and large corporations – would result in a loss of nearly $186 billion in government revenue between 2023 and 2032, for a net increase to the deficit of about $114 billion.

    The Republican bill has no chance of becoming law under Biden, who has vowed to veto it in the highly unlikely event it got through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Biden said that “MAGA Republicans” in the House “want to impose a 30 percent national sales tax on everything from food, clothing, school supplies, housing, cars – a whole deal.” He said they want to do that because “they want to eliminate the income tax system.”

    Facts First: This is a fair description of the Republicans’ “FairTax” bill. The bill would eliminate federal income taxes, plus the payroll tax, capital gains tax and estate tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. The bill describes a rate of 23% on the “gross payments” on a product or service, but when the tax rate is described in the way consumers are used to sales taxes being described, it’s actually right around 30%, as a pro-FairTax website acknowledges.

    It is not clear how much support the bill currently has among the House Republican caucus. Notably, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told CNN’s Manu Raju this week that he opposes the bill – though, while seeking right-wing votes for his bid for speaker in early January, he promised its supporters that it would be considered in committee. Biden wryly said in his speech, “The Republican speaker says he’s not so sure he’s for it.”

    Biden claimed the unemployment rate “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

    Facts First: This is true. The unemployment rate was just below 3.5% in December, the lowest figure since 1969.

    The headline monthly rate, which is rounded to a single decimal place, was reported as 3.5% in December and also reported as 3.5% in three months of President Donald Trump’s tenure, in late 2019 and in early 2020. But if you look at more precise figures, December was indeed the lowest since 1969 – 3.47% – just below the figures for February 2020, January 2020 and September 2019.

    Biden said that the unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic Americans are “near record lows” and that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is “the lowest ever recorded” and the “lowest ever in history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claims are accurate, though it’s worth noting that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities has only been released by the government since 2008.

    The Black or African American unemployment rate was 5.7% in December, not far from the record low of 5.3% that was set in August 2019. (This data series goes back to 1972.) The rate was 9.2% in January 2021, the month Biden became president. The Hispanic or Latino unemployment rate was 4.1% in December, just above the record low of 4.0% that was set in September 2019. (This data series goes back to 1973.) The rate was 8.5% in January 2021.

    The unemployment rate for people with disabilities was 5.0% in December, the lowest since the beginning of the data series in 2008. The rate was 12.0% in January 2021.

    Biden said that fewer families are facing foreclosure than before the pandemic.

    Facts First: Biden is correct. According to a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about 28,500 people had new foreclosure notations on their credit reports in the third quarter of 2022, the most recent quarter for which data is available; that was down from about 71,420 people with new foreclosure notations in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 74,860 people in the first quarter of 2020.

    Foreclosures plummeted in the second quarter of 2020 because of government moratoriums put in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Foreclosures spiked in 2022, relative to 2020-2021 levels, after the expiry of these moratoriums, but they remained very low by historical standards.

    Biden said, “More American families have health insurance today than any time in American history.”

    Facts First: Biden’s claim is accurate. An analysis provided to CNN by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies US health care, found that about 295 million US residents had health insurance in 2021, the highest on record – and Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation’s director for state health reform, told CNN this week that “I expect the number of people with insurance continued to increase in 2022.”

    Tolbert noted that the number of insured residents generally rises over time because of population growth, but she added that “it is not a given” that there will be an increase in the number of insured residents every year – the number declined slightly under Trump from 2018 to 2019, for example – and that “policy changes as well as economic factors also affect these numbers.”

    As CNN’s Tami Luhby has reported, sign-ups on the federal insurance exchange created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, have spiked nearly 50% under Biden. Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan pandemic relief law and then the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act temporarily boosted federal premium subsidies for exchange enrollees, and the Biden administration has also taken various other steps to get people to sign up on the exchanges. In addition, enrollment in Medicaid health insurance has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic, in part because of a bipartisan 2020 law that temporarily prevented people from being disenrolled from the program.

    The percentage of residents without health insurance fell to an all-time low of 8.0% in the first quarter of 2022, according to an analysis published last summer by the federal government’s Department of Health and Human Services. That meant there were 26.4 million people without health insurance, down from 48.3 million in 2010, the year Obamacare was signed into law.

    Biden said, “And over the last two years, more than 10 million people have applied to start a small business. That’s more than any two years in all of recorded American history.”

    Facts First: This is true. There were about 5.4 million business applications in 2021, the highest since 2005 (the first year for which the federal government released this data for a full year), and about 5.1 million business applications in 2022. Not every application turns into a real business, but the number of “high-propensity” business applications – those deemed to have a high likelihood of turning into a business with a payroll – also hit a record in 2021 and saw its second-highest total in 2022.

    Trump’s last full year in office, 2020, also set a then-record for total and high-propensity applications. There are various reasons for the pandemic-era boom in entrepreneurship, which began after millions of Americans lost their jobs in early 2020. Among them: some newly unemployed workers seized the moment to start their own enterprises; Americans had extra money from stimulus bills signed by Trump and Biden; interest rates were particularly low until a series of rate hikes that began in the spring of 2022.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 9 States With No Income Tax: Everything To Know

    9 States With No Income Tax: Everything To Know

    [ad_1]

    Income tax can take a big bite out of your wallet and your business’s bottom line. But not every state in the union charges income tax. Some states, like Texas, have become well-known as business havens for budget-minded entrepreneurs partly because they don’t charge income tax.

    For comparison, here are the nine states with the highest income tax rates:

    1. California – 13.30%
    2. Hawaii – 11.00%
    3. New York – 10.90%
    4. New Jersey – 10.75%
    5. Oregon – 9.90%
    6. Minnesota – 9.85%
    7. Vermont – 8.75%
    8. Iowa – 8.53%
    9. Wisconsin – 7.65%

    This article will look at nine states with no income tax and explore everything taxpayers need to know about these tax-reduced territories.

    What is income tax?

    Income tax is a crucial source of revenue for state and federal governments worldwide. There are several types of income tax that you might have to pay depending on where you live.

    An individual income tax is levied on individuals’ wages, salaries or other income. States usually impose these.

    Corporate income taxes are levied against businesses and their income from business operations.

    Meanwhile, state and local income taxes are other forms of income tax that states have more power over. These are distinct from federal income taxes and subject to each state’s specific tax code. Some states, such as California, impose significant income taxes, while others levy no additional income tax.

    Related: States With the Lowest Corporate Income Tax Rates

    Why do some states charge income tax?

    Income tax is a very reliable source of income. People have to earn money to spend money, which means that levying an income tax provides local and federal governments with enough funding to build schools, maintain roads, pay law enforcement officers and fund all other types of government operations.

    Related: Plan Ahead to Avoid Tax Time Surprises

    Which U.S. states don’t have to pay taxes on income?

    Only some states charge income tax to their citizens.

    Nine states either don’t have an income tax or are set to phase out income tax shortly. These states are:

    • Alaska
    • Florida
    • Nevada
    • New Hampshire — technically, New Hampshire makes tax investment and interest income, but those taxes will be gone in 2023.
    • South Dakota
    • Tennessee
    • Texas
    • Washington State — note that Washington does charge income tax for investment income and capital gains taxes, but only for those who earn a certain amount of money.
    • Wyoming

    If you live in any of these states, you’ll take home more of your money from most sources of income, like your salaries and tips.

    Related: Taxes on Small Businesses Across the Globe, Mapped: See Where Rates Are High, Low — and Nonexistent

    Comparing states with no income tax

    Does that mean you should immediately pack your bags and try to move to one of the above states? Not necessarily. Keep reading to review each state with no income tax and compare them based on their total tax burden and other factors.

    Alaska

    Alaska is both a cheap and expensive place to live. For instance, it has no state income tax or sales tax. The total tax burden for Alaska is 5.10% — the lowest of all 50 states. On top of that, all Alaskan residents get an annual payment from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.

    Still, the cost of living in Alaska is higher than average because of its distance from manufacturing centers and the relative remoteness of its cities. So you can expect to pay more for things like groceries and gas.

    Florida

    Florida is a popular snowbird state thanks to its population of retirees and its warm temperatures. While the excise and sales taxes in Florida are higher than the national average, the total tax burden on Florida residents is 6.97%.

    It does have higher-than-average housing costs, but on the plus side, Florida is a relatively cheap state to live in if you want to go to school.

    Related: An Underwater Property in Florida Is Going for $43 Million. The Developer Calls It a ‘Unicorn.’

    Nevada

    Nevada’s total tax burden is 8.23%. Citizens don’t have to worry about income tax because there are high sales taxes on alcohol, gambling, purchasing groceries, buying clothes, casinos and hotels.

    New Hampshire

    Then there is New Hampshire. As mentioned above, New Hampshire doesn’t charge general income tax, but it does charge income taxes on certain things. The total tax burden for New Hampshire residents hovers at around 6.84%, which is relatively low compared to other states.

    New Hampshire is a relatively small state, and the cost of living can vary depending on where you live.

    South Dakota

    South Dakota has a total tax burden of 7.37% for its filers. Even though it doesn’t charge income tax, it does charge heavy taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol.

    It also charges very high sales taxes and has higher than average property tax rates, making it costly to live here if you don’t have a good source of income.

    Tennessee

    Tennessee’s total tax burden on its residents is 5.74%. Due to legislation passed in 2016, Tennessee lowered taxes for unearned income for its citizens. But this only resulted in a higher sales tax rate and the overall highest beer tax rate for any state in the union, measuring in at $1.29 per gallon.

    Texas

    Texas has a total tax burden of 8.19%. Most of its taxes come from excise taxes and sales taxes because the residents hate the idea of income taxes. Note that sales taxes can be up to 8.25%in certain jurisdictions.

    Furthermore, property taxes in Texas are higher here than in most other states. Even with all that, there’s no denying that Texas has a relatively low tax burden compared to other conditions.

    Related: A Texas farmer offers Elon Musk 100 acres of land to move Twitter offices from California to Texas

    Washington

    Washington has a relatively young population and an average tax burden of 8.34%. Many residents pay high sales and excise taxes, and you’ll find that gasoline prices at the pump are also higher than average.

    Combine that with higher-than-average living costs and high housing costs, and it’s clear that Washington is not among the most affordable states, even if it doesn’t charge income tax (for most).

    Wyoming

    Lastly, Wyoming is a very unpopulated state. It charges a total tax burden of 6.14% on its citizens, which includes excise, sales, (some) income and property taxes.

    While Wyoming might be cheap, keep in mind that it’s only suitable for those who are fans of the frontier lifestyle. This empty state has little going on in terms of metropolitan areas or tourist attractions besides national parks.

    Should you move to a state with no income tax?

    Moving to a state with no income tax is an attractive prospect. No one likes getting a check from their work only to see what the government takes to pay for necessary services.

    While you might rationally understand the purpose of income taxes, you might instinctively feel despondent to see your hard-earned money taken away right as you get it.

    But while it can be tempting to move to a state with no income tax, you should consider the total tax burden each state levies on its residents before proceeding. You should also consider what each state has to offer.

    Related: 4 Effective Strategies to Reduce Your Income Taxes

    For example, many people move to California, which is widely understood to be one of the most expensive states to live in. Why? It’s a beautiful state, with lots to do and job opportunities, particularly in the entertainment and tech industries.

    Similar states, like New York, Hawaii or Minnesota, might have high federal income tax rates for all taxable income and additional taxes to boot but counteract that with low local sales tax rates.

    In contrast, Wyoming might place a low tax burden on its residents. But you must have a job in farming, ranching or mining. There isn’t much to see and do in Wyoming if you aren’t a fan of the great outdoors.

    Then you have to keep business taxes in mind. Self-employed individuals might find some states better than others regarding the final tax bill or their state sales tax brackets.

    Factors like healthcare, pensions and dividend income can make states like Alabama, New Jersey, Illinois and others throughout the United States attractive places to live and work.

    Therefore, don’t immediately pick one of these states and move just because it doesn’t have personal income tax on your earned income. Income taxes are valuable and vital for the government, and in many cases, they can help to fund some of the most enjoyable and profitable parts of state economies.

    What’s the bottom line on states with no income tax?

    There are plenty of states you can move to throughout the US without an income tax. These might be ideal states to move to in the future or states in which to start a business.

    But remember that these no-income tax states have advantages and disadvantages; consider the total tax burden imposed on you and future businesses in each state before setting out for “greener” pastures.

    Looking for more helpful articles to expand your financial knowledge? Check out Entrepreneur’s Money & Finance resources here.

    [ad_2]

    Entrepreneur Staff

    Source link

  • Trump Organization convicted in executive tax dodge scheme

    Trump Organization convicted in executive tax dodge scheme

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s company was convicted of tax fraud on Tuesday in a case brought by the Manhattan District Attorney, a significant repudiation of financial practices at the former president’s business.

    The guilty verdict came on the second day of deliberations following a trial in which the Trump Organization was accused of being complicit in a scheme by top executives to avoid paying personal income taxes on job perks such as rent-free apartments and luxury cars.

    The conviction is a validation for New York prosecutors, who have spent three years investigating the former president and his businesses, though the penalties aren’t expected to be severe enough to jeopardize the future of Trump’s company.

    As punishment, the Trump Organization could be fined up to $1.6 million — a relatively small amount for a company of its size, though the conviction might make some of its future deals more complicated.

    Trump, who recently announced he was running for president again, has said the case against his company was part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” waged against him by vindictive Democrats.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK to raise $65 billion from windfall tax on energy companies | CNN Business

    UK to raise $65 billion from windfall tax on energy companies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    The UK government is hiking a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and extending the levy to electricity generators, as it scrambles to balance its budget amid an economic downturn. It is also investing in nuclear power for the first time in decades.

    UK finance minister Jeremy Hunt announced the measures on Thursday while delivering the government’s medium-term budget, which laid out plans for higher taxes and cuts to public spending.

    Beginning January 1, the Energy Profits Levy on oil and gas companies will increase from 25% to 35% and remain in place until the end of March 2028. That takes the total tax on the sector to 75%, according to the Treasury.

    There will also be a new, temporary 45% levy on the excess profits of electricity generators over this period. In the United Kingdom, electricity prices are tied to wholesale gas prices, which means many power generators are also enjoying mega profits.

    Together, these measures will raise £14 billion ($16.5 billion) next year and more than £55 billion ($65 billion) between 2022 and 2028.

    There have been growing calls in Britain for higher taxes on the windfall profits of oil and gas companies, which have enjoyed record earnings this year thanks to rising prices driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    At the same time, households and businesses are being squeezed by decades-high inflation as a result of spiraling energy and food bills. The annual rate of UK inflation rose to 11.1% in October, its highest level in 41 years.

    “I have no objection to windfall taxes if they are genuinely about windfall profits caused by unexpected increases in energy prices,” Hunt said in parliament on Thursday. “Any such tax should be temporary, not deter investment and recognize the cyclical nature of energy businesses,” he added.

    The United Kingdom will spend an additional £150 billion ($176.9 billion) on energy bills this year compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Hunt. That’s the equivalent to paying for a second National Health Service.

    Hunt on Thursday also extended government support for energy bills by another 12 months until April 2024, but said average households should expect to pay £3,000 ($3,451) annually, up from £2,500 ($2,951) currently.

    As well as hiking energy taxes, Hunt affirmed a £700 million ($824 million) investment into Sizewell C, a nuclear power station operated by France’s EDF in the east of England.

    The deal was first announced by former prime minister Boris Johnson last September and is the first state backing for a nuclear project in over 30 years.

    It will provide power to the equivalent of six million homes for over 50 years and represents “the biggest step” in Britain’s “journey to energy independence,” Hunt said.

    Hunt reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to a 68% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. “Last year nearly 40% of our electricity came from offshore wind, solar and other renewable sources,” he said.

    He added that from April 2025 electric vehicle drivers will no longer be exempt from paying car taxes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Organization faces criminal tax fraud trial over perks

    Trump Organization faces criminal tax fraud trial over perks

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — For years, as Donald Trump was soaring from reality TV star to the White House, his real estate empire was bankrolling big perks for some of his most trusted senior executives, including apartments and luxury cars.

    Now Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, is on trial this week for criminal tax fraud — on the hook for what prosecutors say was a 15-year scheme by top officials to hide the plums and avoid paying taxes.

    Opening statements and the first witnesses are expected Monday in New York. Last week, 12 jurors and six alternates were picked for the case, the only criminal trial to arise from the Manhattan district attorney’s three-year investigation of the former president.

    Among the key prosecution witnesses: Trump’s longtime finance chief Allen Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty and has agreed to testify against the company in exchange for a five-month jail sentence.

    If convicted, the Trump Organization could be fined more than $1 million and could face difficulty in securing new loans and deals. Some partners and government entities could seek to cut ties with the company. It could also hamper its ability to do business with the U.S. Secret Service, which sometimes pays the company for lodging and services while protecting Trump as a former president.

    Neither Trump nor any of his children who have worked as Trump Organization executives are charged or accused of wrongdoing. Trump is not expected to testify or even attend the trial.

    Prosecutors have said they do not need to prove Trump knew about the scheme to get a conviction and that the case is “not about Donald Trump.” But a defense lawyer, William J. Brennan, said even if he’s not physically there, Trump is “ever present, like the mist in the room.”

    That’s because Trump is synonymous with the Trump Organization, the entity through which he manages his many ventures, including his investments in golf courses, luxury towers and other real estate, his many marketing deals and his TV pursuits.

    Trump signed some of the checks at the center of the case. His name is on memos and other company documents. Witnesses could testify about conversations they had with Trump. They are even expected to enter Trump’s personal general ledgers as evidence.

    Prosecutors say The Trump Organization — through its subsidiaries Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp. — is liable in part because former Weisselberg was a “high managerial agent” entrusted to act on behalf of the company and its various entities.

    The Trump Organization has said it did nothing wrong. The company’s lawyers argue that Weisselberg and other executives acted on their own and that, if anything, their actions harmed the company financially.

    Weisselberg, who has pleaded guilty to taking $1.7 million in off-the-books compensation, pinned blame on himself and other top Trump Organization executives, including senior vice president and controller Jeffrey McConney.

    But he disagreed with the notion that the company was harmed, saying the perks actually saved the company money because it avoiding having to give raises.

    Prosecutors have said they expect to call 15 witnesses, including Weisselberg and McConney, who was granted limited immunity to testify last year before a grand jury.

    Judge Juan Manuel Merchan expects the trial to take at least four weeks, though a defense lawyer estimated last week that the prosecution case alone could go on for two months. Court will meet for a full day on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursday and for a half-day on Friday. The trial is off on Wednesday so the judge can attend to other matters.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Fueled by surging revenues, states have been slashing taxes for individuals and businesses for the past three years.

    But the party is expected to come to an end in the coming fiscal year, which started on Saturday in 46 states. Revenue is projected to decline by 0.7% in fiscal 2024, based on forecasts used in governors’ budgets, after an estimated 0.3% dip this fiscal year, according to a recently released National Association of State Budget Officers survey.

    This reversal comes after double-digit percentage increases for the prior two fiscal years. It reflects the impact of slower economic growth, a weaker stock market and a slew of recent tax cuts.

    Some 25 states have cut individual income tax rates since 2021, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. This includes 22 states that reduced their top marginal rates.

    “Most states are viewing tax reform and relief as a chance to, first and foremost, return some of their excess revenue to taxpayers, but to also do that in a way that is simultaneously improving the structure of their tax cuts and make it more conducive to long-term economic growth,” said Katherine Loughead, senior policy analyst at the foundation.

    States are also seeking to make themselves more attractive to business investment, as well as to remote and traditional workers, she continued.

    In 2023 alone, at least eight states approved rate reductions, according to the Tax Foundation. Arkansas, for instance, is trimming its top individual income tax rate to 4.7%, retroactive to January 1, after reducing it from 5.5% to 4.9% last year.

    Likewise, Montana lawmakers approved deepening cuts enacted in 2021. Starting in 2024, the top marginal income tax rate will be 5.9%, instead of 6.5% as originally planned. It was 6.9% in 2021.

    In addition, previously scheduled or triggered income tax rate reductions took effect this year in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina, as well as for interest and dividend income in New Hampshire, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Aside from individual income tax cuts, states have also lowered the levies on purchases and for businesses over the past three years. Two states cut sales tax rates, while 13 reduced corporate income tax rates and others made additional tax changes that benefited companies.

    In 2023, Nebraska and Utah adopted corporate income tax rate reductions. The former will phase down its top rate to 3.99% in 2027, accelerating an earlier law’s timetable. If fully implemented as planned, Nebraska will slash its top marginal corporate income tax rate nearly in half over six years, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Utah also further reduced its corporate income tax rate to 4.65%, retroactive to January 1. A law passed last year had cut it to 4.85% for 2022, down from 4.95%.

    The tax cuts, along with stock market declines and the shaky economy, have taken their toll on states’ revenues, however.

    State tax revenue fell in 37 states, after adjusting for inflation, between July 2022 and May 2023, according to Lucy Dadayan, principal research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some 19 states saw declines before taking inflation into account.

    Revenue dropped nearly 12% over the period on an inflation-adjusted basis. All major sources of revenue – personal income, sales and corporate income taxes – declined, though the extent varies widely by state and source. Individual income taxes were the weakest, plummeting more than 22%.

    States are in trouble, though there won’t be an immediate crisis, she said. Much depends on factors that remain unknown, such as whether the nation will fall into a recession or whether states will face natural disasters.

    The robust revenue of recent years was “artificially boosted” by federal Covid-19 pandemic relief funds and the strong stock market in 2021, she said.

    “We knew this is temporary,” Dadayan said. “It would have been better if the states wouldn’t jump and do tax cuts and be more cautious.”

    Still, revenues in fiscal 2023 are coming in stronger than initially expected. The current estimates are outperforming earlier forecasts by 6.5%, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. Most states have also built up big reserves in their rainy day funds in recent years.

    Whether states will continue cutting taxes in the coming fiscal year will depend on what happens with revenues.

    “A lot of states have done what they can already,” Loughead said. “They will continue to look at how revenues come in and how the rates measure up. If they still are experiencing strong surpluses, I do think they might tweak those rates down even more.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tax prep companies shared private taxpayer data with Google and Meta for years, congressional probe finds | CNN Business

    Tax prep companies shared private taxpayer data with Google and Meta for years, congressional probe finds | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Some of America’s largest tax-prep companies have spent years sharing Americans’ sensitive financial data with tech titans including Meta and Google in a potential violation of federal law — data that in some cases was misused for targeted advertising, according to a seven-month congressional investigation.

    The report highlights what legal experts described to CNN as a “five-alarm fire” for taxpayer privacy that could lead to government and private lawsuits, criminal penalties or perhaps even a “mortal blow” for some industry giants involved in the probe including TaxSlayer, H&R Block and TaxAct.

    Using visitor tracking technology embedded on their websites, the three tax-prep companies allegedly sent tens of millions of Americans’ personal information to the tech industry without consent or appropriate disclosures, according to the congressional report reviewed by CNN.

    Beyond ordinary personal data such as people’s names, phone numbers and email addresses, the list of information shared also included taxpayer data — details about people’s filing status, adjusted gross income, the size of their tax refunds and even information about the buttons and text fields they clicked on while filling out their tax forms, which could reveal what tax breaks they may have claimed or which government programs they use, according to the report.

    The report, which drew on congressional interviews and written testimony from Meta, Google and the tax-prep companies, also found that every taxpayer who used TaxAct’s IRS Free File service while the tracking was enabled would have had their information shared with the tech companies. Some of the tax-prep companies still do not know whether the data they shared continues to be held by the tech platforms, the report said.

    “On a scale from one to 10, this is a 15,” said David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former consumer protection chief at the Federal Trade Commission, the country’s top privacy watchdog. “This is as great as any privacy breach that I’ve seen other than exploiting kids. This is a five-alarm fire, if what we know about this so far is true.”

    It is also an example, Vladeck said, of why the United States needs federal legislation guaranteeing every American a basic right to data privacy — an issue that has languished in Congress for years despite electronic data becoming an ever-larger part of the global economy.

    The congressional findings represent the latest claims of wrongdoing to hit the embattled tax-prep industry after a report last year by the investigative journalism outlet The Markup highlighted the tracking practice.

    Wednesday’s bombshell report adds to those earlier revelations by identifying a previously unreported category of data that was allegedly being collected and shared: the webpage titles in online tax software that can reveal what tax forms users have accessed, said an aide to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who helped lead the congressional probe. For example, taxpayers who entered information about their college savings contributions or rental income may have done so on webpages bearing titles reflecting that information, which would then have been shared with the tech companies, the aide said.

    During the probe, Meta told investigators it used the taxpayer data it received to target third-party ads to users of its platform and to train its artificial intelligence algorithms, the report said. The Warren aide told CNN it was unclear whether Meta knew it was inappropriately using taxpayer data at the time. A Meta spokesperson said the company instructs its partners not to use its tools to share sensitive information and that Meta’s systems are “designed to filter out potentially sensitive data it is able to detect.”

    The technology behind the data collection, known as a tracking pixel, is commonly used across the entire internet. A small snippet of code that website owners can insert onto their sites, tracking pixels gather information that can help companies, including but not limited to Meta and Google, understand the behavior or interests of website visitors.

    Because of the tracking technology used by TaxAct, TaxSlayer and H&R Block, “every single taxpayer who used their websites to file their taxes could have had at least some of their data shared,” the report said.

    The tax-prep companies at the center of the investigation told lawmakers the collected data had been scrambled to help protect privacy, according to the report. But the report also said some of the tax-prep firms themselves were not fully aware of how much information was being exposed to the tech platforms, and the report cited past FTC research concluding that even “anonymized” data can be easily reverse-engineered to identify a person.

    The pixels’ use in a taxpayer context resulted in the “reckless” sharing of legally protected data that could put taxpayers at risk, according to the report by Warren and her Democratic colleagues Sens. Ron Wyden; Richard Blumenthal; Tammy Duckworth; and Sheldon Whitehouse; Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats; and Democratic Rep. Katie Porter.

    The FTC, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration “should fully investigate this matter and prosecute any company or individuals who violated the law,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter dated Tuesday to the agencies and obtained by CNN. The FTC and DOJ declined to comment; the IRS and TIGTA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, H&R Block said it takes client privacy “very seriously, and we have taken steps to prevent the sharing of information via pixels.” Wednesday’s report said H&R Block had testified to using the tracking technology for “at least a couple of years.”

    TaxAct and TaxSlayer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The report said TaxAct had been using Meta’s tools since 2018 and Google’s since about 2014, while TaxSlayer began using Meta’s tools in 2018 and Google’s in 2011. The investigation found that all three tax-prep companies had discontinued their use of Meta’s pixel after The Markup’s report last November.

    Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, received an initial inquiry letter from the lawmakers in December but was not a focus of Wednesday’s report because the company did not use tracking pixels to the same extent, the investigation found.

    Tax preparation firms have faced mounting scrutiny in recent years amid reports that many have turned to data harvesting as a business model and that the largest among them have spent millions lobbying against legislation that could make it easier for Americans to file their tax returns. An IRS report this year found that 72% of Americans would be interested in using a free, electronic tax filing service if it were provided by the agency as an alternative to private online filing services. The IRS plans to launch a pilot version of that service to a limited number of taxpayers in the 2024 tax filing season.

    Google told CNN it prohibits business customers from uploading to its platform sensitive data that could be traced back to a person.

    “We have strict policies and technical features that prohibit Google Analytics customers from collecting data that could be used to identify an individual,” a Google spokesperson said. “Site owners — not Google — are in control of what information they collect and must inform their users of how it will be used. Additionally, Google has strict policies against advertising to people based on sensitive information.”

    Wednesday’s report focuses more heavily on Meta’s use of taxpayer data, the Warren aide told CNN, because Google did not appear to have used the information for its own commercial purposes as overtly as Meta and the investigation was unable to fully determine whether Google may have used the data for other applications.

    The allegations could nevertheless create extensive legal risk for both the tech companies as well as the tax-preparation firms, according to tax and privacy legal experts.

    The tax-prep companies could face billions in fines under US tax law if the federal government decides to sue, said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. In addition, the US government could seek criminal penalties.

    “The scope of ‘taxpayer information’ is broad by design,” Rosenthal said, adding that tax-prep companies can be sued for “knowingly” or “recklessly” leaking that information. “The companies shouldn’t be sharing it in a way that some third party could obtain it.”

    Theoretically, he said, the tax code also affords individual taxpayers the right to file private lawsuits against the tax-prep companies. But most if not all of those firms require customers to submit to mandatory arbitration that could realistically make bringing a private claim more challenging, said the Warren aide.

    Apart from the tax code, both the tech giants as well as the tax-prep firms could also face civil liability from the FTC — which can police data breaches and hold companies accountable for their commitments to user privacy — and potentially from state governments that have their own privacy laws on the books, said Vladeck.

    Depending on the strength of the allegations, the tax-prep companies could quickly be forced into a binding settlement, said a former FTC official who requested anonymity in order to speak more freely.

    “If the facts are really strong, these companies would probably rather settle than go to court. This is very embarrassing,” the former official said. “It could be a mortal blow to the tax prep companies.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link