Blog Archives

Tax Plan Proposal For an “Innovation Economy”


After reviewing the tax plans of each of the GOP Presidential Candidates, I decided to try to craft a plan which I think will accomplish five major objectives:

  1. Create an “Innovation Economy”
    1. Economy which rewards Entrepreneurs, Landowners & Businesses who invest in the U.S.
  2. Maximize U.S. economic growth
    1. GDP Growth, Capital Investment Growth, Wage Growth, & New Job Creation
  3. Cut taxes for every single income class
    1. Focusing the largest cuts on those who are most likely to pump it back into the economy
  4. Reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service
    1. Make it so that every single individual can do taxes on just one form
  5. Incentives for Top Earners to drive extra money into the economy in the most productive way
    1. Make it more profitable to start small businesses, and invest in real estate

I, of course, also have the advantage of not needing to craft a plan that can get me elected, so I am simply trying to build a tax plan that will accomplish those five goals, regardless of how the ideas would play on the campaign trail.

Highlights of the Innovation Economy Tax Plan

Eliminates Corporate Income Tax

Creates a two-tier “Business Transfer Tax” or Value-Added Tax (VAT):  16% and 25%

Enacts a one-time deemed Repatriation tax of 5% on all foreign profits currently deferred

Rental Property, and commercial property, Income would no longer be taxable

Reduces seven Individual Income Tax Brackets down to two:  10% and 25% (Progressive Tax)

Increases Standard Deduction to $25,000

Eliminates all Itemized Deductions and Tax Credits

Eliminates payroll tax

Eliminates Alternative Minimum Tax

Eliminates 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax

Eliminates 0.9% Medicare Surtax

Eliminates Estate Tax

 

 

Replace Corporate Income Tax with Two-Tiered Business Transfer Tax (VAT)

In order to boost GDP, Increase wage growth, and drive new incremental job growth, the United States must lower the tax burden on our nation’s businesses.  At the same time, we must discourage businesses from moving operations overseas, and try to drive as much of the enhanced economic benefit back to people within our borders.  For this reason, I am proposing a two-tier tax Business Transfer Tax.  Businesses who adhere to two simple rules, outlined below, will qualify for the 16% Tax Bracket, those who don’t will qualify for the 25% Tax Bracket:

  1. 90% of employees must be based in the United States
  2. 90% of Capital Investment must be spent inside of the United States

Companies would put in an application every three years, which would examine the past three years.  If they have met the requirements for the past three years, they would be pre-approved for the next three years.  If they are determined to have not met the requirements for the past three years, their pre-approval application would be declined.  If they had been pre-approved in the past, and it is determined that they did not meet the requirements over that 3-year span, they would be given a tax bill for the three years worth of tax breaks which they did not earn.

This is a unique proposal, which will drive specific behaviors among businesses in the United States.  This proposal would do a number of things to jumpstart the Innovation Economy inside the USA:

  1. Heavy Capital Investment Industries would benefit
    1. Tooling Companies, and even U.S. Based Software Outsourcing companies
  2. Less Outsourcing across every industry
    1. Companies near the 90% mark will pull back employees, or outsource less in the future
  3. This will create thousands of small businesses
    1. Lower tax rates for entrepreneurs will lead to more new small business start-ups
  4. Top-Earners will turn towards creating businesses to shield taxes
    1. Higher Capital Gains rates for top earners, so they will invest in business start-ups
  5. This move will boost GDP and create a maximum number of Net Incremental Jobs
    1. Important metric increases by incenting companies, & top earners, to invest in America

Enacts a one-time deemed Repatriation tax of 5% on all foreign profits currently deferred

There are $2.1 Trillion dollars of profits currently being held offshore.  If all of those profits came back to the U.S. today, it would result in several hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue, and make investment in the U.S. much easier to accomplish for many companies.  Since it is so expensive to repatriate these profits, that will never happen.  This plan is simple, earning $50 – $100 Billion now, and causing a massive influx of dollars into the American Economy, is better than continuing to incent companies to keep their profits overseas by making it cost-prohibitive to bring the dollars back to America.

This plan advocates a one-time 5% Repatriation fee, that will be good for a period of two years, so that companies can repatriate their profits in an orderly fashion.  Most companies will take advantage of this, because it is such a steal of a deal from a tax perspective.  The two-year timeframe will allow companies to plan out the additional tax expense, and the plan will result in a huge influx of dollars into the U.S. economy. This influx, in conjunction with the tax incentives for investing in U.S. CapEx, will cause unprecedented GDP and Job Growth at the very beginning of this plan, which will make it easy to surpass current Presidential Plans in the traditional 10-year view that the Tax Foundation takes when analyzing the plans.

Rental Property, and commercial property, Income would no longer be taxable

This is one of the most controversial portions of the plan.  The idea here is that by taking away the Mortgage Interest exemption (explained later), the housing market could suffer.  This part of the plan will eliminate that concern, along with making it easier for ordinary Americans to prosper in Real Estate, while also making taxes simpler (and therefore, be able to shrink the IRS), all while giving the top earners a place to invest their money which will benefit everyone in the American Economy.

Here is how it would work.  There would be no taxes on any income made through rental property, or commercial property ownership.  This, of course, will increase the ownership of rental property across America.  It will also likely lower the average rent paid (through more competition, and less need for higher profits to offset the tax burden).  This, in conjunction with the removal of the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction, will drive a disparity between the cost of renting a home, and the cost of owning a home.  Some will say that this is just another way to drive a wedge between the lower class, and the upper class, but the actual effect would be that both classes prosper (along with the middle class).  The lower class benefits from lower rents through increased competition, and less need to offset the tax burden.  The middle class benefits because entry-level housing will need to become cheaper to compete with the new lower top tier of rental prices (along with less need to offset the tax burden.  The upper class benefits because they can participate in the rental market by making a tax-free profit, while helping the lower class live cheaper than they do today.  It is literally a win-win-win.

How will this affect the overall economy?  The lower class will have more money to spend (due to lower rent).  They tend to spend their excess dollars, so this will instantly pump back into GDP, which will be good for businesses.  The middle class will benefit the most from the Net Incremental Jobs which will be created through the higher GDP.  The upper class will try to avoid the higher tax rate on Capital Gains, and will dump lots of excess money into real estate, which will cause a real estate boom throughout the country.  This will directly help the middle class, as studies have shown that in suburbs over 100,000 people (where most of the middle class resides), cities still have between 19% and 25% of the land sits vacant.  This is land that the top earners can purchase to expand the city’s population, or invest in commercial real estate to bring new jobs to the city, but will likely result in very strong momentum on both fronts.

Individual Income Tax Brackets

Consolidate the 7 current individual tax brackets into two brackets:  10% and 25%.  Everyone making under $200,000/year would fall into the 10%.  Once you have exceeded the $200,000 income level, you would be taxed at 25% thereafter (so, this would be a progressive tax bracket).  All income will be taxed the same, whether it is payroll income, short term capital gains, or long term capital gains.  This plan will result in an overall tax rate drop for every single one of the 7 current tax brackets, which we will discuss later.

Standard Deduction

Increase the current standard deduction from $6,300/person to $25,000/person.  This increase will affect all taxpayers, but will the largest positive affect in the lowest tax bracket.  This is important, as we have discussed, because these folks are the most likely to pump the money directly back into the economy the quickest.

Itemized Deductions & Tax Credits

All Itemized Deductions and Tax Credits would be eliminated.  It is important to note that this includes the Child Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction, and the Charitable Giving Tax Deduction, all of which most candidates keep in their tax plans.  These Tax Credits and Deductions, which the candidates have kept in their plans, cost taxpayers nearly $250B/year in lost tax revenue.

Earned Income Tax Credit

With the proposed increase in the standard deduction, the lowest income brackets are already receiving drastic tax decreases, and the EITC would only reduce tax liability for couples earning $50,000 or more (right around where the EITC phases out today anyway).  For this reason, there is no real reason to keep the EITC in place, as we have already brought their Federal Tax Burden down to 0%.

Child Tax Credit

Again, after the Standard Deduction increase, this tax break would affect mostly the middle and upper income tiers, and the argument for this Tax Credit is typically the lower-income individuals/families.  Since we are lowering the tax burden for every income bracket, we should take advantage of that to eliminate all tax credits, so that we may move to a much more simple tax process, and thereby shrink the size of the IRS significantly.  The folks who are losing this benefit would be paying dramatically less taxes than they are today, and will not miss its effects.

Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction

This is probably the most controversial Tax Deduction omission.  Many Americans would balk at the thought of eliminating this Tax Break.  However, most people think they get a lot more benefit than they do.  Take a family of four, who is in the 15% tax bracket with a $200,000 home, and a 5% loan.  This family only pays $10,000 in Mortgage Interest per year, and their 15% tax bracket means that the entire benefit from this deduction is only $1,500.  Meanwhile, the drastic increase in the Standard Deduction more than offsets any benefit this family will get from the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction.  In fact, in this plan, the folks at the highest tax brackets would benefit the most from this deduction, and therefore, it is deemed unnecessary.  Some people will argue that removing this deduction will have a negative effect on the housing market.  I would argue that it will bring the housing market to equilibrium, especially in conjunction with the new tax treatment of rental properties, proposed earlier in the plan.

Folks who probably should not be purchasing a house, but do so because they are told the tax credit is worth it, will now make smarter decisions.  Folks who don’t need a mortgage, but take one out to utilize the tax deduction, will now be less leveraged.  Folks who buy a house just a little beyond their means, using the tax deduction as their reason, will now make better budgetary decisions.  In addition, the new tax treatment of rentals will make renting much more affordable, and will shift people from the fence between buying and renting, making it a much easier decision for the majority of families.

After a few years, the market will completely stabilize, and people will be smarter when it comes to home purchases.  The removal of this deduction will likely stabilize the market, making huge ebbs and flows in prices less likely to occur, as Congress will be less likely to use this deduction as a tool in order to drive artificial dollars into the economy.  Also, with the rental property tax exemption, mentioned earlier, the housing market is more likely to surge, than it is to dip.  The balance between renters and homeowners will just shift accordingly, and appropriately.

Charitable Giving Tax Deduction

This is another tax break that people think is bigger than it really is.  Take the same family, except that they are earning more income (making $100,000/year), and tithing 10% of their income.  This family is giving away $10,000/year, and is now in the 25% tax bracket.  They would get a tax benefit of $2,500.  Again, the lofty standard deduction increase would more than make up for any lost income from this tax credit.  Once again, this tax credit primarily benefits the rich.  The argument can be made that charitable giving will go down if this deduction is removed, but I would argue that the economic benefits from this plan will put more money in people’s pockets, and charitable giving will go up as a result.  After all, giving away $10,000 to save $2,500 in taxes is not a fantastic financial move, it is clear that the motivation for giving stretches beyond the tax break.

Eliminate The Estate Tax

This plan is designed to pump as much money into the economy as possible, resulting in more jobs, higher GDP, more corporate investment, and higher wage growth.  All of that should result in people passing away with larger nest eggs than we have seen in previous generations.  The Estate Tax has been a hot button issue for politicians for years, and one which they like to manipulate (or demonize) in order to get votes during election years.  The idea here is simple:  Your debt has already been paid.  This plan already has the wealthy folks paying a lot more than the everyday folks, and has eliminated every way that the rich folks can get out of paying their fair share.  Waiving the Estate Tax gives people a reason to continue to try to build wealth, which is a key component of the Innovation Economy.  Removing this tax keeps incentives in place for people to work harder, and longer, and will ultimately pay for itself in the form of the economy creating more jobs due to the American Spirit of Innovation.  Also, it is just dirty to have someone work hard to save money all their life, and have their kids watch as the government steals their parent’s hard-earned money before the body is even cold.  That should not be the role of Government in the greatest country in the world.

Summary

In the end, it is clear that this would be a drastic change from today’s tax code, but it would accomplish the five goals we set out to at the beginning of the argument:

  1. Create an “Innovation Economy”
    1. Economy which rewards Entrepreneurs, Landowners & Businesses who invest in the U.S.
  2. Maximize U.S. economic growth
    1. GDP Growth, Capital Investment Growth, Wage Growth, & New Job Creation
  3. Cut taxes for every single income class
    1. Focusing the largest cuts on those who are most likely to pump it back into the economy
  4. Reduce the size of the Internal Revenue Service
    1. Make it so that every single individual can do taxes on just one form
  5. Incentives for Top Earners to drive extra money into the economy in the most productive way
    1. Make it more profitable to start small businesses, and invest in real estate

Reason To Believe

While the Tax Foundation would have to run this plan through one of its massive analysis tools to determine the economic effects over the next 10 years, I decided to include some reasons to believe.

The plan was based off of Ted Cruz’s Flat Tax proposal, then altered from there.  I am going to try to value some puts/takes to see how the final financials would play out.

  1. Eliminating all Tax Credits and Tax Deductions: +$250B/year positive vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
    1. Adding up the approx. costs of EITC, Mortgage, Child Tax Credit, Charitable Deductions
  2. 2ndIncome Tax Bracket of 25% (5,000 HH in the U.S.): +$175B/year positive vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
    1. + $125B/year for higher income earners (top 3% of HH in the country)
    2. + $50B/year for higher Capital Gains Tax Rates for higher earners
  3. Higher 25% Business Transfer Tax Income Tier: + $300B/year positive vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
  4. Lower 16% Business Transfer Tax Income Tier: $0B/year equal vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
  5. Repeal Estate Tax: $0B/year equal vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
  6. No Rental Income Taxes: – $25B/year negative vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan
  7. 5% Repatriation Tax: 1-time + $50B Was not factored into the Tax Foundation’s analysis
  8. Increase the Standard Deduction: – $700B/year negative vs. Ted Cruz’s Plan

In total, using these rough calculations, this plan would cost approximately the same as Ted Cruz’s plan, which was estimated to create 4.2M jobs, but still costs around $700B over the next ten years.  However, the enhanced Repatriation benefit (which was not even valued in the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the Cruz plan), the US-Investment based lower Business Transfer Tax incentive, the Rental Income Tax Repeal, and the higher Standard Deduction will all drive economic growth at the very beginning of this plan, and should make up more than the $700B deficit over the next ten years.  As with any tax plan, this would need to be implemented in conjunction with spending cuts to offset any potential cost of the plan, if it were found not to be overall neutral.

This is the type of innovative tax plan that will allow us to boost Innovation, drive U.S. Economic Growth, reduce the size of the IRS, and lower taxes across the board for every citizen.  It would be hard to implement, but the benefits would be felt for years to come.

 

Advertisements

How would a CEO fix America?


CEOs are overpaid, profit-hungry, shareholder-beholden, monsters of society….Right?  Right?  Right?

But, have you ever thought about how a CEO might tackle America’s budget issues?

Certainly, a company with America’s track record would have gone bankrupt years ago.  Shareholders would have expected that the company would have brought in a brilliant CEO mind to engineer a turnaround by now…But, what would that CEO do if they had to turn this ship around?

Here is the answer, brought to you straight from CEO 101:

1)       Cut fixed costs

2)      Increase prices

3)      Institute a poison pill

4)      Sell off unprofitable assets

5)      Pay down debt, increase cash flow

 

1)  Cut Fixed Costs

This is a must-have in any business turnaround.  You must first cut down our fixed costs, so that when you manage to increase revenue, the effect is exponential.  In order to cut costs, America would need to reduce its federal salaries, and entitlement programs immediately.  Programs like Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, along with federal government salaries, account for around 60% of the annual budget.  By cutting these programs/salaries by 15%, the United States would save around $315 billion/year.

2)  Increase Prices

The Federal Government collects approximately $2.77 Trillion in tax revenue each year.  If the Federal Government were to increase tax collections by 15%, they would net an additional $415 Billion/year.  One could spend years arguing the best way to administer this tax increase, but let’s assume that since over 50% of people don’t pay federal income tax, and 10% of people can afford to pay more, that we find some solution that makes it so everyone can survive while letting the government keep its head above water.

3)  Institute a “Poison Pill”

Many Corporations institute poison pill initiatives, to ward off competitors with evil agendas.  The United States should do the same.  Instead of Obama’s plan, which decimates the military, we should look to strengthen the military while cutting in all other areas.  By cutting the Nuclear Arsenal, while cutting some new weapons systems, and reforming command, support, and infrastructure, the armed forces could save approximately $500 Billion over the next ten years, or $50 Billion/year.  Today, we spend about $150 Billion/year on salaries for around 1.4 million soldiers.  If we reinvested the $50 Billion/year into more soldiers, we would be sitting at over 2 million soldiers, which would put us on par with China as the world’s largest military.  In one budgetary move, we could provide employment to 800,000 Americans, and put ourselves back on the map as the world’s largest military in a revenue-neutral move.

4)      Sell off unprofitable assets & defund unprofitable business units

The Federal Government owns approximately 650 million acres of land, appraised at around $2000/acre, equals a sum of $1.3 Trillion.  If the government were to unload the worst 33% of the land, it would net around $400 Billion, along with lowering expenses significantly.

We spend over $70 Billion/year in foreign aid, $17 Billion/year on NASA, $30 Billion/year in agriculture subsidies, $48 Billion/year on the department of education, and $13 Billion/year for the IRS.  That would total about $175 Billion/year.

5)      Pay Down Debt

We spend about $415 Billion/year in interest on your national debt.  By making the aforementioned cuts, we would save approximately $900 Billion/year.  This would allow us to pay off around $350 Billion of National Debt each year, which would account for an additional $10 Billion/year in interest expense.

Where would we be if the Government took these steps?

Today, we stand at $17.75 Trillion in debt.  If the Federal Government took these steps, we would reduce the debt by $360 Billion/year.  Even with this dramatic effort, we would still likely not be debt-free for approximately 50 years.

Clearly, it is time that we bring in a “fixer” who can set this country on the right path.  While 50 years is a long time to recover, it is better than the trajectory that we are on.  There are many things that can speed up the recovery, such as entitlement reform/dismissal, or temporary tax spikes, but the overall goal needs to be having a smaller central Government with less taxes and less fixed costs going forward.

Calling all Conservatives: Would you rather vote for the GOP, or this new Political Party?


Ever since the Tea Party emerged onto the Political Scene, True Conservatives have been looking for a home to call their own.  The traditional Republican Party has not welcomed us, as the Tea Party has had mixed reviews in the Main Stream Media.  Joining the existing third parties have not been effective, because it is hard to gain meaningful election wins without a major party.  In addition, no one has been able to properly define what a typical “Tea Party Voter” is, so the part has been unable to mobilize nationally.

What if we could change all of that?  What if we could define the ideals of the Tea Party in an easy-to-understand manner, which allowed a very conservative party to cast a wide net of support?

What if we were able to draw supporters of the right-wing Republicans, Fiscally-Conservative Democrats, along with the support of 3rd parties like the Constitution Party, the Natural Law Party, and the Libertarian Party?

What if we had 3 simple rules.  As long as you could follow those rules, you could be a member of the party, and the national party would support your candidacy?

What if the new party’s only three rules were:

1)  Protect the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States of America

2)  Reduce Tax liability, drastically reduce spending, and work to reduce the National Debt

3)  Social issues should be decided by the 10th Amendment, and all views are welcome within the Party

Can anyone reading this blog post think of a reason why such a party would not garner significant support?  You have a party who protects the Constitution, a party which lowers federal spending, lowers overall taxation, and lowers the National Debt.  And, finally, you have a party who allows you to believe what you want on Social issues, as long as you believe that the individual state legislatures, or that state’s population, should get to decide on the legality of those issues.

This party would allow for a far-right-conservative to vote for a candidate, while at the same time allowing for a Moderate Democrat to vote for the same candidate.  This party could theoretically attract folks from the Constitution Party, while also attracting folks from the Green Party.  In short, a Constitution-protecting candidate, with the latitude to support what social views they want, so long as they support the 10th Amendment, could garner a wide-range of political support.  This party could provide the true third party that the country has been looking for since the days of the Whigs in the mid-1800’s…

For argument’s sake, let’s give this Political Party a name:  The Founder’s Party

If “The Founder’s Party” existed today, could you see yourself voting for them?

Would you be okay with a person who agreed with you on 90% of the issues, but believed the other 10% of the issues should be settled by the representatives of that state, or the people of that state?

How do we go about consolidating the third parties in this great nation?  How do we garner support in the traditional deep-pocketed political machine?  Once a third party has gained credibility, how do we convince them to abandon their specific cause and join our movement to create a true third option in U.S. Politics?

Please share this article if you would like to see such a party enacted in this country!  Thanks!

 

English: William Blount. Signer of the Constit...

English: William Blount. Signer of the Constitution of the United States of America. Deutsch: William Blount. Unterzeichner der Unabhängigkeitserklärung der USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Tort Reform: Make The Loser Pay!


Money

Money (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

I break from my party a bit on Tort Reform, as I don’t believe that we should limit the amount that someone sues for, just like I don’t think we should have blanket statements in the criminal justice field that says there should be no death penalty.  Bad things happen when you make rules like this…Suddenly, some guy in Norway comes around and kills 77 children, but since you limited the court’s options, he will only serve 21 years in jail…As soon as we limit the amount someone can sue for, ten cases will pop up where everyone in the country agrees they should have been allowed to sue for more, and the law will fall apart (because our Congress will fold like a piece of laundry).

I am a big fan of tackling the problem, not a side-effect of the problem, so let’s figure out what the actual problem is in this situation:

If someone brings a lawsuit against a doctor today, he could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending himself.  Unfortunately, when the Doctor finally prevails, he is still out hundreds of thousands of dollars.  This is one of the main reasons that Healthcare costs so much in this country.  The Insurance premiums are outrageous because of how expensive it is when Doctors get sued.  Lawyers make a killing on fees, and the Doctors still lose all of this money…EVEN WHEN THEY WIN!

Now, what would be even more effective than limiting the amount that someone sues for?  How about this interesting idea…

Make The Loser Pay!

By making the loser pay for all of the fees of the winner, many things get accomplished.

First, there will be far less frivolous lawsuits.  People are unlikely to put their hard-earned money on the line to sue someone who really didn’t do anything wrong, whereas today they can sue with no consequences whatsoever.

Second, Class Action lawsuits would be reduced, and only the ones with the most merit will go forward.  Today, there are tons of Class Action Lawyers who comb the news online every day just looking for major companies that they can convince 10,000 people to sue at once.  They sue the company, convince the company to settle for $10 Million.  In this case, each person would get just under $700, the company would lose $10 Million, and the lawyers would get $3 Million!  Is this fair?  Should a lawyer really get over 4,000 times as much as the person who was actually harmed in the lawsuit?  By Making The Loser Pay, the lawyers would have to ensure that they had a good case because companies would be more inclined to fight cases that they thought they could win.

Lastly, it will lighten the load on today’s court system.  You will get called for jury duty less often, the government will spend less money, and companies can invest the millions of dollars that they set aside each year for court cases back into the economy.  The money those businesses save will be invested back into the innovative solutions that will help save our economy from the Great Recession.

Please share this article with your friends and family, and let them know that there are innovative solutions out there if we care enough to push for them.  Thanks!

Michigan Politics: Triple Zero Plan


budget

budget (Photo credit: 401(K) 2013)

In order for Michigan to turn itself around, we need an aggressive strategy to drive more money into the economy on a daily basis.  The first step should be to outline a series of tax reductions that will help every single person in the state, regardless of their situation.  The Triple Zero plan outlines how eliminating the Gas Tax, the Business Income Tax, and the State Property Tax would drastically help boost the economy from day 1.

1)      Eliminate the Gas Tax

  1. Gasoline prices are one of the main drivers of the economy.  Typically, when the economy slows down, gas prices fall. Unfortunately, during the Great Recession, this has not been the case.  By eliminating the Gas Tax, people would instantly pay almost 40 cents less for every gallon that they purchase. This money is small enough on a weekly basis that it would get recycled right back into the economy, providing boosts to local businesses.  The elimination of this tax would help every single person who owns a car, as well as all municipalities who run public transportation programs.

2)      Eliminate the Business Tax

  1. Businesses do not invest during recessions.  Consumer Confidence is down, they don’t know when the economy will turn around, and they typically are having trouble keeping up with their bills.  They don’t invest in jobs, they don’t invest in innovation, and they raise prices of their products/services.  By eliminating the Business Tax entirely, you will give businesses the additional money they need to keep prices steady, hire more people, and invest in the innovation that will help bring about the next economic boom.  Eliminating this tax would help every single business in the state, as well as help drive new businesses to want to leave other states and settle in Michigan.

3)      Eliminate the State Property Tax

  1. Michigan has been one of the hardest hit states in Foreclosures and underwater mortgages.  Yet, the state still charges a hidden property tax (above and beyond what your local municipality charges).  This state will never recover without at least a partial recovery of the housing sector.  By eliminating this tax, you would be putting money back into the homeowner’s hands, lowering the foreclosure rate, and driving Michigan Home Prices upward.

Due to the fact that states have to balance their budgets, we need to decrease spending in order to decrease taxes.  The good news is that the three taxes I have outlined for elimination only make up 14% of the states revenue.  This means that the state will have to cut their budget by 14%, something that almost every single business has had to do during the Great Recession.  By eliminating programs, wasteful spending, and over-regulation, Michigan can eliminate over 14% of its expenditures and make room for these three tax cuts which will drive money back into the economy, increase job openings, raise home prices, and help Michigan emerge from this recession as a stronger, leaner state.

Please share this article with your friends and family in Michigan to help spread awareness on how the Triple Zero plan can help lead us back to prosperity.

Follow me @ToddHagopian for more creative ideas on how we can help turn Michigan around, and share this blog post with your friends and family.  Thanks!

Please Sign This Petition To Enact A Federal Right-To-Work Law!


Please Sign This Petition To Enact A Federal Right-To-Work Law

According to USLegal.com, a Right-To-Work law is defined as a law that allows employees to “decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union.”  Without this law, a union shop can force members to either join the union, or unions can force them to pay union dues even if the employee refuses to join a union.  Without this law, closed-shops are also outlawed, which means that it is illegal to stop employees from starting a union.  So, the first question that should come to your mind is “Why would anyone in their right mind be against a law like this?”

The major unions in the country hate these Right-To-Work laws because they would no longer be able to force people to join or pay dues.  They would have to start justifying their existence, convincing unsure members that their services are worth it, and they would have to work with the employers to stay relevant.  The fact is that union members make up less than 11% of the workforce, but because of their incredible power, they have been able to stop these laws from entering just over half of the states in the United States.

We are trying to help spread information on the benefits of the Right-To-Work laws by starting a petition to enact Federal Legislation guaranteeing people the right to choose whether or not to be associated with Labor Unions.  Please “sign” this petition by sharing or commenting on this blog post.  Thank you for spreading the Right-To-Work message across the United States of America!

Please Sign This Petition To Repeal The Gas Tax!


Join Me In Urging All Levels Of Government To Repeal All Taxes On Fuel

The federal government enjoys taxing its citizens because they believe that they can spend the money better than we can.  For decades, there has been an ongoing discussion on what the government should pay for and how much they should be able to tax.

Unfortunately, the cowards in Washington DC only spend time talking about the taxes that are visible to the American Public.  Hardly anyone even realizes that the average American pays almost 50 cents a gallon every time they purchase gas.  That means that most Americans will pay thousands of dollars in hidden taxes over the next decade.

We need to end the Federal Gas Tax, and urge states to do the same.  Please “sign” this petition by commenting/sharing the article all over social media.  Below are some facts on why this is one hidden tax that needs to be eliminated in order to help get the United States out of the current recession.  Please share this article with all of your friends, followers, and connections.  Thanks!

How Gas Prices Affect Americans

Lower Consumer Confidence

Lower Consumer Spending

Lower Auto Sales

Less Jobs

Higher Energy Prices

Higher Prices On Consumer Goods & Services

 

How Gas Prices Affect Businesses

Less Hiring

Higher Raw Material Prices

Higher Product Costs

Higher Service Costs

Higher Car Fleet Costs

Less Investment In The Business

 

How Do Gas Taxes Affect You?

The average American will lose thousands of dollars to the gas tax over the next several years

Eliminating Gas Taxes would pump $43 billion back into the economy each and every year

 

Who Are The Biggest Gas Tax Offenders?

The Federal Government charges 18 cents a gallon, and they allow the states to charge additional taxes

Drivers in CA, HI, & CT pay over 65 cents a gallon in gas taxes

Drivers in MI, IN, IL, NC, & WA pay over 56 cents a gallon in gas taxes

Drivers in FL, NV, WI, WV, & RI pay over 51 cents a gallon in gas taxes

Gas Tax – 1-pager

%d bloggers like this: