The Center for Health and Economy has released a study estimating the increased costs to taxpayers through the federal government in 2017. ObamaCare premiums will be 22% higher in 2017, but the average monthly subsidy cost will go up by 26% from $291/month to $367/month. The subsidy percentage increase is greater since incomes are losing ground relative to the premium increase.
The study says 11.1 million people per month are on ObamaCare in 2016 and this number is expected to increase to 11.4 million a month in 2017. Of these 9.39 million in 2016 received tax credits and 9.65 million are expected to receive tax credits in 2017. In 2016, 84.6% of the people on ObamaCare received a tax credit subsidy. The study expects the same percentage in 2017. Clearly if you do not qualify for the tax credit subsidy, there is little likelihood that you will buy your health insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges.
The resulting increase in federal payouts from 2016 to 2017 is $9.8 billion. The 2016 cost of the subsidies was $32.8 billion and the expected 2017 cost will be $42.6 billion. The federal subsidies will therefore cost 29.9% more in 2017 than in 2016. Those states that expanded their Medicaid rolls will also see large cost increases.
As an American, your health insurance premiums will go up, your deductible will likely go up, your co-pay will likely go up, your federal government costs will definitely go up, and in many states your state government costs will go up in 2017 thanks to ObamaCare. Obama's transformation of America leaves those of us who are not subsidized with no hope. Does it even provide hope to those who are subsidized as peons or serfs to the state?
Showing posts with label tax credits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax credits. Show all posts
15 December 2016
15 March 2009
The First Obama Stimulus Bill
There is talk about the need to have a second Obama stimulus bill, close on the heels of earlier bailouts for the financial and banking industries, the U.S.-based automakers, and money to help prevent mortgage foreclosures. Most economists and financial experts seem to be of the opinion that the first Obama stimulus bill has not been and will not be adequate to get the economy moving again. It certainly has not caused the private sector to invest and hire employees at what we have come to think of as normal levels. But, the first Obama stimulus bill and the Omnibus spending bill which followed on its heels did serve a purpose. They were designed to shift wealth and income from the private sector, especially the higher income side of the private sector, to the government sector. At this, they are clearly very successful. This is the primary desire of the socialists running the Obama administration and providing the leadership of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate.
Let us examine the first $787 billion stimulus bill to see how this was accomplished. Let us break it down as the Washington Post did on 14 February with costs in billions:
Health information technology (incentives for Medicare/Medicaid providers), $20.8
Health insurance for unemployed, $25.1
Assistance to unemployed families, $57.2
Tax Provisions, $73.8
Health, Labor, & Education, $71.2
Energy and water, $50.8
Overall, tax reductions for individuals are only $73.8 billion, not one penny of which will go to high income earners. Other than alternative energy, there are no private sector companies which will get any tax breaks. The total tax reduction part of the stimulus bill is only 9.4% of the "expenditure", so Congress got to fully direct 90.6% of the total monies use.
There is no incentive whatsoever for any industry to hire anyone, except in the construction, college & university, public school system, health care, computer & broadband, electric transmission line companies, law enforcement, vocational training, government, building materials, construction equipment, and alternative energy areas. Note that these encouraged areas are either government workers directly or private industry which has long been heavily dependent upon government funding and have been selected to receive subsidies from the remainder of the private sector through increased tax transfers of wealth. The money to be sucked out of the remainder of the private sector will fund these government-favored areas.
A great part of the money seems directed at making the medical industry still more dependent upon government. The $2 billion to set up the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the incentives to get Medicaid and Medicare providers to set up computerized medical records are especially interesting. It is perhaps quite rational to have more computerization of medical records and even to then use those records to better assess which medical procedures work best. However, we know that much more than this is afoot. It is very clear that the socialists now running the Federal government intend to use these computerized medical records to gain more control over medical treatments and to reduce the medical-decision power of the patient and doctor. This must happen as a part of the plan to have a single-provider (i.e., government) system of medical and health care.
It is very clear that the teacher's unions and the education establishment are being paid for their strong support of the Democrat Party and of ideological socialism. $79.2 billion is going to state grants for education, education for the disadvantaged, and special education. The colleges are making out big-time. The $9.7 billion to NIH, the $3 billion to NSF, the $1.6 billion for the office of science of the Energy Dept., the $16.6 billion in student financial assistance, and the tuition tax credit of $2500 will flood the universities and colleges with more money to continue to fuel their ever-escalating costs. A part of the $16.8 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy will also fund university research. The NIH, NSF, Energy Dept. Office of Science money will mostly fund an increase in university research grants and new lab facilities. The student financial aid and tax credits will decrease the pressure to control tuition rate increases. There is little reason to believe that any of this money will provide more spur to the economy than that money would have if left in the hands of the private sector. While it is true that some colleges and universities are private, most are nonetheless strong advocates of much bigger government, for which they are rewarded with research money and many financial considerations already.
The construction projects to be funded are almost entirely for more government infrastructure, to be supported by tax dollars long into the future. Most investors will find little stimulus to their plans in this stimulus bill. Few wealthy individuals will have reason to invest their money in the United States. It will make more sense for them to move more of their money abroad, where the tax rates on higher income people are lower. American multinational corporations will have ever more reason to expand their operations abroad, while contracting them in the United States. Contraction of operations will mean that they will have less expense for providing health insurance and increased sick leave mandated by Congress as well. Many companies must be very worried about this.
This stimulus bill should have consisted of a major decrease in taxes to be realized by every individual and by corporations. As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is very foolish for us to tax corporations at the highest rates in the world, with the exception of Japan, with whom we are about tied. It is equally foolish to maintain a very punitive tax rate on upper income earners. These high corporate and individual rates actually decrease government revenues, so we do not need to take the claim seriously that these high rates make life better for those with lower incomes because then government can do more to help them. Indeed, we can laugh at it derisively and proclaim with assurance that the real reason for these rates is one of envy, hatred, and the desire to take down those who have achieved great success in the private, voluntary sector. Such motivations clearly controlled many of those in the New Deal of the Franklin Roosevelt administration and they now control the thoughts of the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress in their pursuit of a New New Deal. This and only this explains their carefully orchestrated snubbing of most of the private sector and of the very idea of the sovereignty of the individual.
Let us examine the first $787 billion stimulus bill to see how this was accomplished. Let us break it down as the Washington Post did on 14 February with costs in billions:
Health information technology (incentives for Medicare/Medicaid providers), $20.8
Health insurance for unemployed, $25.1
Assistance to unemployed families, $57.2
Tax Provisions, $73.8
- Making Work Pay Credit, $400/year for individual, $800/yr. for family, may exceed tax otherwise owed, offered for 2 years
- Tuition tax credit up to $2500, provided family makes less than $180,000/yr.
- Expanded child tax credit for low income families up to $1000 per child
- Families not owning a home in past 3 years get $8,000 tax credit to buy a home before the end of this year
Health, Labor, & Education, $71.2
- National Institute of Health, $9.7
- National Coordinator for health information technology, $2
- Other health, $9.8
- Employment and training programs, $4.3
- Education for the disadvantaged, $13
- Special education, $12.2
- Student financial assistance, $16.6
- Other, $3.6
- Highway construction, $27.5
- Other transportation, $20.6
- Housing assistance programs, $13
Energy and water, $50.8
- Energy efficiency, renewable energy, $16.8
- Federal loan guarantees for renewable energy & electricity transmission, $6
- Other energy, includes modernizing electric grid, $22.4
- Army Corps of Engineers, $4.6
- Other, $1
- Food stamps, $20
- Broadband expansion in rural areas, $2.5
- Other, $3.9
- Grants to extend broadband, $4.7
- State & local law enforcement, $2.8
- National Science Foundation, $3
- Other, $5.3
- Homeland Security, $2.7
- Military construction, $4.2
- Defense facility repair & energy, $4.5
- State grants for water infrastructure, $5.8
- Other, includes national park capital improvements, $4.7
- Construction & repair of federal buildings, $5.4
- Other, $1.3
Overall, tax reductions for individuals are only $73.8 billion, not one penny of which will go to high income earners. Other than alternative energy, there are no private sector companies which will get any tax breaks. The total tax reduction part of the stimulus bill is only 9.4% of the "expenditure", so Congress got to fully direct 90.6% of the total monies use.
There is no incentive whatsoever for any industry to hire anyone, except in the construction, college & university, public school system, health care, computer & broadband, electric transmission line companies, law enforcement, vocational training, government, building materials, construction equipment, and alternative energy areas. Note that these encouraged areas are either government workers directly or private industry which has long been heavily dependent upon government funding and have been selected to receive subsidies from the remainder of the private sector through increased tax transfers of wealth. The money to be sucked out of the remainder of the private sector will fund these government-favored areas.
A great part of the money seems directed at making the medical industry still more dependent upon government. The $2 billion to set up the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the incentives to get Medicaid and Medicare providers to set up computerized medical records are especially interesting. It is perhaps quite rational to have more computerization of medical records and even to then use those records to better assess which medical procedures work best. However, we know that much more than this is afoot. It is very clear that the socialists now running the Federal government intend to use these computerized medical records to gain more control over medical treatments and to reduce the medical-decision power of the patient and doctor. This must happen as a part of the plan to have a single-provider (i.e., government) system of medical and health care.
It is very clear that the teacher's unions and the education establishment are being paid for their strong support of the Democrat Party and of ideological socialism. $79.2 billion is going to state grants for education, education for the disadvantaged, and special education. The colleges are making out big-time. The $9.7 billion to NIH, the $3 billion to NSF, the $1.6 billion for the office of science of the Energy Dept., the $16.6 billion in student financial assistance, and the tuition tax credit of $2500 will flood the universities and colleges with more money to continue to fuel their ever-escalating costs. A part of the $16.8 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy will also fund university research. The NIH, NSF, Energy Dept. Office of Science money will mostly fund an increase in university research grants and new lab facilities. The student financial aid and tax credits will decrease the pressure to control tuition rate increases. There is little reason to believe that any of this money will provide more spur to the economy than that money would have if left in the hands of the private sector. While it is true that some colleges and universities are private, most are nonetheless strong advocates of much bigger government, for which they are rewarded with research money and many financial considerations already.
The construction projects to be funded are almost entirely for more government infrastructure, to be supported by tax dollars long into the future. Most investors will find little stimulus to their plans in this stimulus bill. Few wealthy individuals will have reason to invest their money in the United States. It will make more sense for them to move more of their money abroad, where the tax rates on higher income people are lower. American multinational corporations will have ever more reason to expand their operations abroad, while contracting them in the United States. Contraction of operations will mean that they will have less expense for providing health insurance and increased sick leave mandated by Congress as well. Many companies must be very worried about this.
This stimulus bill should have consisted of a major decrease in taxes to be realized by every individual and by corporations. As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is very foolish for us to tax corporations at the highest rates in the world, with the exception of Japan, with whom we are about tied. It is equally foolish to maintain a very punitive tax rate on upper income earners. These high corporate and individual rates actually decrease government revenues, so we do not need to take the claim seriously that these high rates make life better for those with lower incomes because then government can do more to help them. Indeed, we can laugh at it derisively and proclaim with assurance that the real reason for these rates is one of envy, hatred, and the desire to take down those who have achieved great success in the private, voluntary sector. Such motivations clearly controlled many of those in the New Deal of the Franklin Roosevelt administration and they now control the thoughts of the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress in their pursuit of a New New Deal. This and only this explains their carefully orchestrated snubbing of most of the private sector and of the very idea of the sovereignty of the individual.
01 November 2008
Obama's Tax Cut Illusions
Obama is posing as a tax-cutter in this presidential election, despite his past history as an enthusiastic taxer. He is doing this in a particularly insidious way.
Obama is clearly buying votes and pitting large numbers of Americans against carefully crafted smaller numbers of Americans and businesses owned by Americans. This is the usual socialist technique of playing upon envy and avarice and directing them against an electoral segment which is relatively defenseless.
HE claims that HE is going to cut the taxes of 95% of working American families, though who knows what HIS definition of working families is. In reality, HE is going to give many so-called "tax credits" to Americans on their income tax returns who are not paying any income tax. This is clearly disguised welfare. Who gets this welfare? We do not know exactly, but it looks to be most of the 44% of all tax filers who will pay no income taxes under the Obama plan. The total cost of the "tax credits" is estimated to be $1.054 trillion over the next 10 years, an increase of $647 billion over the present tax credits. These tax credits, while welfare, will not be counted in the welfare part of the federal budget. They will be hidden costs.
There is another major problem with these tax credits: they are sold as an incentive to work, but in some cases they will be a disincentive. This is because as a low income family earns more, they will lose a large part of their increased earnings to a very high marginal tax rate. Some families with an income of $40,000 will lose up to $0.40 for every additional dollar they earn!
You can read more about Obama's tax plans on individuals in a good Wall Street Journal article here.
Obama also says that HE will give tax breaks to 95% of businesses. HE wants to increase taxes on large businesses, on capital gains, and on estate taxes applied to small businesses. The capital gains and estate tax increases will hurt many small businesses, as will the tax increases on large businesses. For instance, I own and operate a small business, but most of my customers are large enough businesses that they are going to be hit by massive tax increases by Obama. Somehow, all that extra money being sent out in welfare checks under the guise of tax credits and his other massive new federal programs have to be paid for. There is no such thing as a free lunch, even if the Pied Piper says there is! So, what will happen to my business when my customers are hurting under the burden of higher taxes? Will their expanded operations in India, China, Ireland, and Poland send my laboratory as many material samples for analysis as their plant in Ohio or in North Carolina does? When they close the Ohio and North Carolina plants, won't that hurt my business? What, am I supposed to be stupid enough not to know what the effect on my business will be?
So, what new start-ups and small businesses will get Obama's tax cuts? Who actually knows? HE has not told us how long a company is considered a start-up and HE has not defined what he means by a small business. But, the reality is this: Giving a small business a minor tax break while sending the economy into a depression is a badly losing proposition for almost any small business. It is better to teach a man to fish, or at least to allow him to fish, than it is to give him a fish. With businesses, it is best to allow people to run them with minimal interference. Then natural incentives and rewards for hard work and creative and useful ideas will do the rest.
Instead, HE wants to pick the winners and kick the losers in the teeth. Developers of his favored technologies will possibly prosper. So, it will be good to be developing solar energy and wind generators, but it will be bad to be a materials analysis laboratory, a computer manufacturer, a surgical tool maker, a weapons maker (Barney Franks says they will cut the defense budget by 25%), an oven maker, a specialty cloth maker, or huge numbers of other industries. You will be hurt unless you devote a massive effort to curry favor from Washington Democrat politicians, as Fanny Mae, AIG, Goldman Sachs, and PNB have done in the financial arena. Small businesses cannot do this.
So, for a single fish, we are expected to elect HIM and then find many of our customers hurt, a weakened economy, energy-use restrictions, more severe and senseless environmental restrictions, more expensive and less reliable energy, more expensive health care mandates, increased liability to claims of gender pay discrimination, and more restrictions on imports and exports. What a trade! I would rather just be allowed to do my own fishing.
Both individual tax payers and business owners should be very wary of this charlatan who will do anything to be the Wealth-Redistributor-in-Chief. How ironic that this will make HIM our Master!
Obama is clearly buying votes and pitting large numbers of Americans against carefully crafted smaller numbers of Americans and businesses owned by Americans. This is the usual socialist technique of playing upon envy and avarice and directing them against an electoral segment which is relatively defenseless.
HE claims that HE is going to cut the taxes of 95% of working American families, though who knows what HIS definition of working families is. In reality, HE is going to give many so-called "tax credits" to Americans on their income tax returns who are not paying any income tax. This is clearly disguised welfare. Who gets this welfare? We do not know exactly, but it looks to be most of the 44% of all tax filers who will pay no income taxes under the Obama plan. The total cost of the "tax credits" is estimated to be $1.054 trillion over the next 10 years, an increase of $647 billion over the present tax credits. These tax credits, while welfare, will not be counted in the welfare part of the federal budget. They will be hidden costs.
There is another major problem with these tax credits: they are sold as an incentive to work, but in some cases they will be a disincentive. This is because as a low income family earns more, they will lose a large part of their increased earnings to a very high marginal tax rate. Some families with an income of $40,000 will lose up to $0.40 for every additional dollar they earn!
You can read more about Obama's tax plans on individuals in a good Wall Street Journal article here.
Obama also says that HE will give tax breaks to 95% of businesses. HE wants to increase taxes on large businesses, on capital gains, and on estate taxes applied to small businesses. The capital gains and estate tax increases will hurt many small businesses, as will the tax increases on large businesses. For instance, I own and operate a small business, but most of my customers are large enough businesses that they are going to be hit by massive tax increases by Obama. Somehow, all that extra money being sent out in welfare checks under the guise of tax credits and his other massive new federal programs have to be paid for. There is no such thing as a free lunch, even if the Pied Piper says there is! So, what will happen to my business when my customers are hurting under the burden of higher taxes? Will their expanded operations in India, China, Ireland, and Poland send my laboratory as many material samples for analysis as their plant in Ohio or in North Carolina does? When they close the Ohio and North Carolina plants, won't that hurt my business? What, am I supposed to be stupid enough not to know what the effect on my business will be?
So, what new start-ups and small businesses will get Obama's tax cuts? Who actually knows? HE has not told us how long a company is considered a start-up and HE has not defined what he means by a small business. But, the reality is this: Giving a small business a minor tax break while sending the economy into a depression is a badly losing proposition for almost any small business. It is better to teach a man to fish, or at least to allow him to fish, than it is to give him a fish. With businesses, it is best to allow people to run them with minimal interference. Then natural incentives and rewards for hard work and creative and useful ideas will do the rest.
Instead, HE wants to pick the winners and kick the losers in the teeth. Developers of his favored technologies will possibly prosper. So, it will be good to be developing solar energy and wind generators, but it will be bad to be a materials analysis laboratory, a computer manufacturer, a surgical tool maker, a weapons maker (Barney Franks says they will cut the defense budget by 25%), an oven maker, a specialty cloth maker, or huge numbers of other industries. You will be hurt unless you devote a massive effort to curry favor from Washington Democrat politicians, as Fanny Mae, AIG, Goldman Sachs, and PNB have done in the financial arena. Small businesses cannot do this.
So, for a single fish, we are expected to elect HIM and then find many of our customers hurt, a weakened economy, energy-use restrictions, more severe and senseless environmental restrictions, more expensive and less reliable energy, more expensive health care mandates, increased liability to claims of gender pay discrimination, and more restrictions on imports and exports. What a trade! I would rather just be allowed to do my own fishing.
Both individual tax payers and business owners should be very wary of this charlatan who will do anything to be the Wealth-Redistributor-in-Chief. How ironic that this will make HIM our Master!
05 May 2008
Congress Backpeddling on Ethanol
It seems clear now that both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress are largely coming to the conclusion that they made a big mistake in backing ethanol mandates, subsidies, and exclusionary tariffs. Some aspects of the magnitude of their mistake have only relatively recently become clear such as the fact that there is probably no net energy achieved with the use of farmed plants to create ethanol, with the possible exception of sugar cane grown in some very favorable areas. Another example of recent knowledge is that ethanol use does not likely reduce net pollution when all factors are accounted for. On the other hand, the idea that one-quarter of all corn could be used to create ethanol and that this would not greatly increase the cost of corn, those end products dependent upon corn such as beef, pork, chicken, corn oil, and corn syrup, and of soybeans and wheat as corn was planted in their stead, was ludicrous. This year, 35% of the corn crop may be going to ethanol production.
President Bush is still saying that the ethanol mandates are not barely responsible for the food cost increases. He is disappointingly slow on coming around on this. It is true that corn and other food prices are going up both because of the reduction of supply due to the ethanol mandates and due to a major increase in world-wide demand for better and more food.
Congress has pleasantly surprised me by starting to change course so soon. House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat, is not as nimble-minded as he should be, but he is now advocating that the upcoming farm bill, delayed from last year, should reduce the ethanol subsidy. They would also increase the subsidy for cellulosic ethanol. He has said, "Obviously, sometimes there are unforseen or unintended consequences of actions." Imagine a committed socialist allowing that he is not omnipotent! Even that he may have been wrong-headed!
Republicans in Congress actually want now to remove mandates requiring the blending of ethanol with gasoline. Representative Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, introduced a bill to end all federal ethanol supports, including the requirement to blend it with gas, the tax credits for ethanol refiners, and the tariffs to prevent the importation of sugar cane produced ethanol, primarily from Brazil. He recognizes that our economy does not need big increases in food prices on top of those for energy, such as oil. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, wants to freeze the ethanol mandate for gasoline at this year's level. On Rush Limmbaugh's program, she noted that cattle and pig producers were being hurt badly. Apparently there are a few of them in Texas! Rick Perry, Texas governor, has asked the EPA to allow Texas to use only half as much ethanol in gasoline blends as is required.
Meanwhile, some farmers are asking Congress to put windfall taxes on oil producing companies, claiming that these companies are responsible for driving up their costs. The National Corn Growers Association made the foolish claim that the use of biofuels with gasoline was saving Americans $69 billion a year. Others such as Hillary Clinton are also demagogically calling for windfall profit taxes on the oil companies.
President Bush is still saying that the ethanol mandates are not barely responsible for the food cost increases. He is disappointingly slow on coming around on this. It is true that corn and other food prices are going up both because of the reduction of supply due to the ethanol mandates and due to a major increase in world-wide demand for better and more food.
Congress has pleasantly surprised me by starting to change course so soon. House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer, Democrat, is not as nimble-minded as he should be, but he is now advocating that the upcoming farm bill, delayed from last year, should reduce the ethanol subsidy. They would also increase the subsidy for cellulosic ethanol. He has said, "Obviously, sometimes there are unforseen or unintended consequences of actions." Imagine a committed socialist allowing that he is not omnipotent! Even that he may have been wrong-headed!
Republicans in Congress actually want now to remove mandates requiring the blending of ethanol with gasoline. Representative Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican, introduced a bill to end all federal ethanol supports, including the requirement to blend it with gas, the tax credits for ethanol refiners, and the tariffs to prevent the importation of sugar cane produced ethanol, primarily from Brazil. He recognizes that our economy does not need big increases in food prices on top of those for energy, such as oil. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Republican, wants to freeze the ethanol mandate for gasoline at this year's level. On Rush Limmbaugh's program, she noted that cattle and pig producers were being hurt badly. Apparently there are a few of them in Texas! Rick Perry, Texas governor, has asked the EPA to allow Texas to use only half as much ethanol in gasoline blends as is required.
Meanwhile, some farmers are asking Congress to put windfall taxes on oil producing companies, claiming that these companies are responsible for driving up their costs. The National Corn Growers Association made the foolish claim that the use of biofuels with gasoline was saving Americans $69 billion a year. Others such as Hillary Clinton are also demagogically calling for windfall profit taxes on the oil companies.
06 April 2008
School Choice Popularity in Maryland
A bill has been approved by the Maryland Senate to allow Maryland businesses to take a tax credit of up to 75% for a donation to an educational organization that provides scholarships to students. The bill has 78 sponsors in the Maryland House, which is more than enough to pass it, if Sheila Hixson, chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will allow it to be presented to the full House for a vote. Whether she does or not, this development is very significant because it shows how strongly disappointed many citizens are with the public schools and how desperate they are to maintain and promote private schools.
This is happening in a generally solid Democratic state. The governor is a Democrat and both the House and the Senate of the Maryland General Assembly are controlled readily by the Democrats. The Democratic party here, as everywhere else, is very beholdened to the public school teachers unions. This bill is opposed by the Maryland State Teachers Association. This group claims that the state cannot afford to give out handouts to private schools when public schools are cash strapped. Actually, Marylanders are very generous with their public schools, but no matter how generous they may be, it is never enough to make the teachers unions grateful.
Baltimore City schools are horrendous. The schools of Prince George's County, one of the two counties abutting Washington, D. C., are also very bad. Prince George's County School System is the second largest school system in the state, while Baltimore City is about tied with Baltimore County as the 3rd largest school system in the state. Many families in Prince George's County fled Washington, D. C. in large part because its schools are terrible. Now, there is pressure from many families because they wish to send their children to better schools. This pressure is particularly keen in areas with particularly poor schools, which turn out to be some of the most intensely Democrat strongholds in the state. Democrat politicians are now getting the message, partially.
Let us examine the opposition of the Maryland State Teachers Association. A business volunteers to give $100 to educate children. The corporation tax rate in Maryland is 7%. So, the corporation would usually pay $7 to the state out of $100. If the corporation gives this $100 to educate children, then it reduces its taxes by $75 - $7 = $68. Thus, education gets $100 and public education loses some fraction of the $68 less collected by the state. With this program, more students are educated privately, so public education has fewer students to educate, allowing them to spend a lot less money. More net money is going to the education of students and because private schools are better than public schools and many spend less money per student than our troubled public school systems, the total cost of education may actually drop. Our youth are net beneficiaries.
Ah, but the Maryland State Teachers Association does not like this. Is this not clear proof that the teachers represented by the Maryland State Teachers Association are not true professional teachers, who would, of course, put the interests of the students first? Yes it is. They are simply semi-skilled blue collar union workers. No more. It is clear that their priorities lie with having their hands in the government cookie jar and feasting at great expense upon the cookies put there by many hardworking citizens of the state of Maryland. It is time that Maryland citizens put the education of their children ahead of the interests of the public school teacher unions.
What is especially important here is that even Democrat parents are beginning to realize that their children are being poorly served by many of the school systems, especially those controlled most completely by the Democrats and the teachers unions, and they are rebelling. In fact, with enough vigor to get Democrat legislators to act despite the protests of the Maryland State Teachers Association.
This is happening in a generally solid Democratic state. The governor is a Democrat and both the House and the Senate of the Maryland General Assembly are controlled readily by the Democrats. The Democratic party here, as everywhere else, is very beholdened to the public school teachers unions. This bill is opposed by the Maryland State Teachers Association. This group claims that the state cannot afford to give out handouts to private schools when public schools are cash strapped. Actually, Marylanders are very generous with their public schools, but no matter how generous they may be, it is never enough to make the teachers unions grateful.
Baltimore City schools are horrendous. The schools of Prince George's County, one of the two counties abutting Washington, D. C., are also very bad. Prince George's County School System is the second largest school system in the state, while Baltimore City is about tied with Baltimore County as the 3rd largest school system in the state. Many families in Prince George's County fled Washington, D. C. in large part because its schools are terrible. Now, there is pressure from many families because they wish to send their children to better schools. This pressure is particularly keen in areas with particularly poor schools, which turn out to be some of the most intensely Democrat strongholds in the state. Democrat politicians are now getting the message, partially.
Let us examine the opposition of the Maryland State Teachers Association. A business volunteers to give $100 to educate children. The corporation tax rate in Maryland is 7%. So, the corporation would usually pay $7 to the state out of $100. If the corporation gives this $100 to educate children, then it reduces its taxes by $75 - $7 = $68. Thus, education gets $100 and public education loses some fraction of the $68 less collected by the state. With this program, more students are educated privately, so public education has fewer students to educate, allowing them to spend a lot less money. More net money is going to the education of students and because private schools are better than public schools and many spend less money per student than our troubled public school systems, the total cost of education may actually drop. Our youth are net beneficiaries.
Ah, but the Maryland State Teachers Association does not like this. Is this not clear proof that the teachers represented by the Maryland State Teachers Association are not true professional teachers, who would, of course, put the interests of the students first? Yes it is. They are simply semi-skilled blue collar union workers. No more. It is clear that their priorities lie with having their hands in the government cookie jar and feasting at great expense upon the cookies put there by many hardworking citizens of the state of Maryland. It is time that Maryland citizens put the education of their children ahead of the interests of the public school teacher unions.
What is especially important here is that even Democrat parents are beginning to realize that their children are being poorly served by many of the school systems, especially those controlled most completely by the Democrats and the teachers unions, and they are rebelling. In fact, with enough vigor to get Democrat legislators to act despite the protests of the Maryland State Teachers Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
