truthfulpolitics.com

Oct 072010
 
Share

Scott A. Hodge of The Tax Foundation in March 2008 mentioned the following:

  • “The U.S. is among eight countries with extra corporate tax rates imposed by state or local levels of government. While the burden of these state-level taxes is somewhat lessened because they can be deducted from federal taxes”
  • The national average of state corporate tax rates is 6.6%
  • “Assuming that no state cuts its business taxes in the next year, the U.S. federal rate would have to be cut to 20 percent in order to bring the combined federal-state rate down to the middle of the OECD pack.”
  • When combining federal corporate taxes with state corporate taxes, 24 U.S. states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than Japan and all 50 states have a higher combined rate than France.

To read the entire article, click on U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes.


According to Igor Greenwald of SmartMoney in January of 2008:

  • “Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.”
  • Though the corporate income tax rate is 35%, “the income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%.”

To read the entire article, click on High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading.

Oct 072010
 
Share

According to Peter R. Merrill of Tax Analysts, the Treasury Department released a background paper on the corporate tax system of the U.S.:

  • “United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development].”
  • “OECD average corporate tax rate has fallen to 28.4 percent in 2006, almost 11 percentage points below the U.S. tax rate.”
  • “United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004.”
  • “A recent study by Alex Brill and Kevin Hassett finds that the revenue- maximizing central government corporate tax rate in the OECD is now about 26 percent. In other words, an increase in the average OECD corporate tax rate above 26 percent would be expected to reduce, rather than increase, total OECD member corporate tax revenue.”
  • “the U.S. corporate tax conundrum of high rates combined with relatively low revenue is explained by the unusually high share of U.S. business income earned through passthrough entities, rather than the frequently alleged use of inappropriate corporate tax shelters or tax havens.”

To read the entire article, click on The Corporate Tax Conundrum.

Oct 072010
 
Share

According to Politifact.com, 2% of small businesses make more than $250,000. To read the entire article, click on Most small businesses won’t be subject to Obama’s tax increases.


According to the National Small Business Association:

  • Small businesses comprise 99.9 percent of the 26.8 million U.S. businesses.
  • 14.7 million are firms whose owners do not have outside employment and who have employees.
  • 75 percent of small business reported revenues of less than $1,000,000. According to the Obama campaign, 22% of those revenues on average are taken home as profits. Therefore, if 75% of small businesses earn less than $1,000,000, 75% of small business owners would stay under the $250,000 income threshold.
  • Of the 25 percent with revenues in excess of $1,000,000, nearly a third file taxes as a corporation and would therefore not be subject to personal income taxes, or personal income tax increases.
  • NSBA found that 13 percent of small and mid-sized businesses have personal incomes above $150,000 annually – “a lower percentage is likely above the $250,000 threshold.”

To read the entire article, click on Presidential Tax Plans’ Small Business Implications.

Oct 062010
 
Share

Pat Regnier from CNN Money described Senator Obama’s method to improve the economy as a “a fairly traditional Keynesian approach to managing a slump, designed to keep consumers and businesses spending until the storm passes. A similar logic was behind the two emergency tax rebates George W. Bush approved.”

Mr. Regnier also described Senator McCain’s method to improve the economy. “His basic plan for growth is pure Reagan-era supply-side economics: Keep top tax rates low, including taxes on business, to provide incentives for enterprise and investment.”

To read the entire article, click on What You’re Really Voting For.

Oct 062010
 
Share

The Tax Policy Center did an analysis on the tax proposals between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. On average, if an individual’s after tax income is below $111,000 annually, Senator Obama’s tax proposal will lower their tax burden more. On average, if an individual’s after tax income is above $111,000 annually, Senator McCain’s tax proposal will lower their tax burden more.

To get to the Tax Policy Center, click on www.taxpolicycenter.org.


The Washington Post had an article summarizing the effects of the two candidates tax proposals on their website. The article can be found by clicking on Obama and McCain Tax Proposals.

Oct 062010
 
Share

Joseph Wright, assistant professor at Penn State University and visiting fellow at the University of Notre Dame, produced an article for Catholics in Alliance in November of 2008 addressing the effect of socioeconomic factors in abortion reduction.

  • Abortions fell by 18%-21% from 1990-2000
  • An increase in economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate in the 1990s.
  • Higher male employment was associated with a 21% lower abortion rate in the 1990s
  • The same increase in female employment suggests a 17% increase in the abortion rate.
  • Lower poverty rates were correlated with 10% reduction in the abortion rate.
  • There “is little evidence that state policies restricting access to abortion (such as enforced informed and parental consent laws and partial-birth abortion legislation) affect the abortion rate”

AFDC stands for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. This program was changed in 1996 to TANF which stands for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 21 states have a limit on the number of children eligible for AFDC-TANF benefits. The study also mentioned the following:

  • States with a family cap saw a much smaller decline in the abortion rate during the 1990s than states with no family cap.
  • A $100 per person increase in AFDC-TANF spending decreases abortions by 20%
  • “$100 per person is about $30 billion dollars, which is equivalent to the amount tax payers spent on only 12 weeks of funding for the Iraq war in 2007.”

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.

Socioeconomic Factor and Effect on Abortion

To read the entire study, click on Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors.

Oct 062010
 
Share

According to the November 2006 report by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, greater access to contraceptives does not decrease abortions.

  • Swedish teen abortion rates rose from 1.7% to 2.25% between 1995 and 2001 despite easy access to contraceptives
  • Studies also done in Scotland and the San Francisco Bay area showed that availability of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates

To read the entire fact sheet, click on Greater Access to Contraception Does Not Reduce Abortions.


A study in March of 1999 from International Family Planning Perspectives found that the availability of contraception reduces abortion.

Click on the chart below to see an enlarged, clearer chart.


Contraceptive Use and Abortions

To access the entire study, click on In three former Soviet States, rates of abortion are declining as contraceptive prevalence increases.

Oct 062010
 
Share

Linda Lowen of About.com mentioned there are “1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child.” Therefore, “there is no such thing as an unwanted child.” To read the entire article, click on Ten Arguments For Abortion and Against Abortion.


The Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, mentioned the following:

  • The percent of ever-married women who had ever adopted declined from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percent (487,000 women) in 1995.
  • “The demand for adoption appears to have remained stable over time. In 1988, NSFG reported that 204,000 were currently taking steps to adopt; in 1995 the number was 232,000. In 1988, 31 percent of those who had ever sought to adopt had actually adopted a child; in 1995, the figure was also 31 percent.”
  • “In 2000 and 2001, about 127,000 children were adopted annually in the United States. Since 1987, the number of adoptions annually has remained relatively constant, ranging from 118,000 to 127,000.”
  • Adoptions through publicly funded child welfare agencies accounted for two-fifths of all adoptions.

To access more information, click on Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Oct 062010
 
Share

According to Kessel E. Mumford in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “No nation desirous of reducing its growth rate to 1% or less can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion.”

  • “Developed countries will need to maintain abortion rates generally in the range of 201-500 abortions per 1000 live births if they are to maintain growth rates at levels below 1%.”
  • “The current rate in the USA is 426 abortions per 1000 live births.”
  • “A high contraceptive prevalence is essential as well in order to achieve growth rates below 1%.”
  • “To avoid a world with deteriorating social, economic and political stability, with the concomitant loss of personal and national security, we must ensure that safe abortion is made available to all who wish to use this service.”

To read the entire abstract, click on Role of abortion in control of global population growth.