Did you ever wonder about the Federal Budget?

by Greg Snyder

Each year the President’s annual proposed federal budget is sent to Congress from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for both houses of Congress to consider and for each to write its own appropriations bill. After one house finishes its appropriations bill it sends it to the other house of Congress. Both bills are considered by both houses of Congress, and a final bill is written by both houses and then sent to the President for a signature. When the final appropriations bill is finished and sent to the WH for the President’s signature, the OMB makes final decisions about the agencies’ proposed budgets and in that way the appropriations bill is distributed. 

High-Income taxpayers paid the majority of federal Income Taxes. In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes. March 13, 2024. (Adjusted gross income, also known as (AGI), is defined as total income minus deductions, or “adjustments” to income that you are eligible to take.

Taken as a whole, the federal income tax is progressive, meaning that those with higher incomes pay at higher rates. But the system’s progressivity tends to break down at the very uppermost income levels. (I would argue that progressivity tends to break down starting with incomes from $1 million and higher. See my opinion notes at the end of the essay.)

Average effective tax rates, defined here as total income tax as a percentage of AGI, were highest among taxpayers with AGIs between $2 million and $10 million (nearly 28%). The average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGIs of $10 million or more was lower (25.5%), mainly because they tend to get more of their income from dividends and long-term capital gains, which are taxed at lower rates than wages, salaries and other so-called “ordinary income.”

Corporate tax brings in smaller share of federal revenues

Although the focus this time of year is on individual income taxes, corporate income taxes are also a significant source of federal revenue. This year, the Office of Management and Budget projects that the government will collect $546 billion in corporate taxes, or 11.4% of estimated total receipts. That’s less than half the corporate-tax share of total revenues that prevailed in the 1950s.

Several big corporations, including Amazon, Nike and FedEx, have come under fire in recent years for paying little to no income tax. But comparing corporate and individual income taxes is tricky. For one thing, corporations can report income and taxes differently to the IRS than they do publicly to investors. They can also spread losses in a given year across several years’ worth of taxes – meaning, in effect, that taxes due on this year’s profits can be offset by a previous year’s losses.

Besides average effective tax rates, another way to look at the relative burden on different groups of taxpayers is by examining how much of the total bill they foot.

The IRS collected $1.66 trillion in individual income taxes in 2020 (excluding the $78.6 billion in negative tax liabilities referred to earlier). Close to 54% of that sum came from taxpayers with AGIs between $100,000 and $1 million – a group that accounted for just under a fifth of all returns filed (31.3 million), and about 30% of all taxable returns (31 million).

At the very top of the income ladder, only 0.02% of all returns filed in 2020 showed AGIs of $10 million or more, but those taxpayers collectively paid $210.2 billion in taxes after refundable tax credits, or 12.6% of total individual income tax collections.

Tax rateSingleHead of householdMarried filing jointly or qualifying widowMarried filing separately
Source: IRS
10%$0 to $11,600$0 to $16,550$0 to $23,200$0 to $11,600
12%$11,601 to $47,150$16,551 to $63,100$23,201 to $94,300$11,601 to $47,150
22%$47,151 to $100,525$63,101 to $100,500$94,301 to $201,050$47,151 to $100,525
24%$100,526 to $191,950$100,501 to $191,950$201,051 to $383,900$100,526 to $191,950
32%$191,951 to $243,725$191,951 to $243,700$383,901 to $487,450$191,951 to $243,725
35%$243,726 to $609,350$243,701 to $609,350$487,451 to $731,200$243,726 to $365,600
37%$609,351 or more$609,351 or more$731,201 or more$365,601 or more

Here’s how that works for a single person with taxable income of $58,000 per year:

$58,000 to $44,725 taxed at 22%

$44,725 to $11,000 taxed at 12%

$11,000 to $0 taxed at 10%

The highest tax bracket is 37%. In 2023, for single filers, it applies to incomes over $578,126, and for married couples filing jointly, it applies to incomes over $693,751. Income exceeding these thresholds is taxed at a 37% rate.

The rules governing what constitutes business or individual income, and how it should be taxed, are only part of what makes the U.S. tax code as complex as it is. One rough measure of that complexity: The printed version of the 2021 edition of the Internal Revenue Code runs a total of 4,074 pages, excluding front matter. More than half of those pages (2,448) are devoted to the income tax.

The following is my opinion about the Federal Tax Code as it is currently composed and the questions I have about it. These are also my criticisms of the tax code and how I believe it could be improved to make it a truly progressive tax code.

Income of $578,126 for a single filer and $693,751 for married couples filing jointly, and up, are taxed at the maximum tax bracket of 37%.  That is the top tax bracket in the Federal tax code. Income above these sums is taxed 37%.

The bottom half of taxpayers had an income of 10.4% of total AGI and paid 2.3 % of all federal individual income taxes. Taxpayers with AGIs between $100,000 and $1 million made up about 30% of all taxable returns and paid 54% of the income taxes collected. These taxpayers make up about 30% of taxpayers but pay about 54% of the tax bill. Adjustments should be made so that perhaps this group has a tax burden of closer to 30%, the approximate percentage of taxpayers, instead of the 54% they pay now. Taxpayers with income between $1 million and $10 million paid approximately 31% of total individual income tax collection. Taxpayers with an income of $10 million or more made up 0.02% of taxpayers and in the 37% tax bracket paid 12.6% of total individual income tax collections. The discrepancies that exist from one group to the others begs the question of whether the tax burden is equally and fairly shared among all income groups and all tax brackets. A fairer tax code would have more tax brackets for the higher incomes. The total income tax collected on incomes above $10 million should be higher than 12.6%. It should be higher than the other brackets. The tax burden on income from $1 million to $10 million should remain higher than lower tax bracket groups but perhaps slightly lower than they currently are. It’s not rocket science. It’s a matter of fairness with higher incomes paying progressively higher taxes. And with all income, especially at higher levels, being taxed fairly.

Other considerations and changes that should be made are that capital gains and dividends should be taxed as income in corresponding tax brackets; in other words, capital gains and dividends should be taxed like “ordinary” income.

Corporations should be taxed at consistent rates and should not be allowed to pay little or no taxes. After all, corporations are people too. So, like the rest of the people who pay their taxes, corporations should also pay their fair share of taxes. Corporate income taxes should be uniform and consistent. Back taxes or unpaid taxes should be recovered.

I would welcome comments, criticism, and corrections, and further discussion to develop a more comprehensive picture of the tax code and how it can be improved. So, please, feel free to chime in.

Regulations are Protections

by Greg Snyder

A top priority of republicans is to slash federal spending on all kinds of regulations, policies, and laws that protect the American people.

Regulations keep our air and water clean, make polluters responsible for reducing emissions and cleaning up toxic messes made by them. Regulations protect consumers by preventing usurious fees by unscrupulous banks and thereby help keep more money in consumers pockets. Anti trust regulations keep corporations from becoming monopolies and injuring a truly free market. If you have some security in retirement because you have Social Security and Medicare, regulations make it so.

These are just three kinds of regulations, environmental, consumer/banking, and retirement/social safety net, that republican working not on behalf of their constituents but on behalf of their billionaire political patrons, want to gut.

There are many other kinds of regulations that support and protect the the American people. So, when republicans talk about how terrible and wasteful government spending is ask yourself, “Who would benefit from such cuts?” Is it the billionaire donors who want to completely escape and disassociate themselves from the social contract that when they participate in it asks them to pay their fair share of taxes and live in society as socially responsible citizens, not as an elite, entitled, ultra rich sliver of the population that desires freedom from any civic responsibility?

Ask yourself, “Would getting rid of the regulations that these republicans are working to eliminate, help or hurt you and your family? Those are two very important and very easy questions that you can and should always should ask yourself when you see or hear republicans talking about slashing spending and ending regulations. Think about those regulations and about how they affect your life personally. Most often you will find that the regulations that republicans want to slash positively affect your life and improve your standard of living. Is that what you want?

This is a test.

by Greg Snyder

I recently joined Bluesky and am using my WordPress domain as my handle at Bluesky. I am trying to establish a link between my WordPress domain and website on WordPress, thoughtprivacyandliberty.com, on my Bluesky account. Have gone through the detailed Bluesky instructions on how to change my handle on Bluesky to my own domain and have done so successfully but continue to get a message that the verification failed and to try again. So, I’m now trying to attempt verification by doing this test. I have found that my WordPress website is available through links on Bluesky. But it would be reassuring to actually get confirmation from Bluesky that my domain at WordPress has been verified by atproto. Thus, this test.

Two sides of life. Competition and collaboration.

by Greg Snyder

Competition helps to grow an economy. 

Collaboration helps to grow an economy. 

Competition divides people into classes of winners and losers.

Collaboration keeps the field level and fair with all benefitting mostly equally and eliminates winners versus losers.

Competition usually mostly benefits one or a few individuals or families at the expense of the large majority of people who do not benefit as much. 

Collaboration helps ensure that resources and income are more fairly distributed and are used and shared by all and benefit all.

Competition preserves the right of single individuals or small groups to make decisions for one and all.

Collaboration requires input from all members in making decisions for one and all.

The best work experiences are those where there is little or no difference in status, privilege, or job title and little or no difference in income. The best work environments no hierarchy but all work together as a team to complete the work entity’s mission and objectives. That system works best for morale and productivity and makes work a more enjoyable way to spend much of our adult lives. 

These concepts are applicable to all levels of work activity whether it is a single shop or a global enterprise and everything in between.

Drug Abuse

by Greg Snyder

I sent the following letter to the editor of my local newspaper, The Oregonian, after I read an article about a trip that a delegation of various political, law enforcement, and others from Oregon who went to Portugal on a fact-finding mission into Portugal’s approach to the decriminalization of drug use and preventative measures to prevent and/or treat drug addiction. I don’t expect this article to be published in the paper. But I wanted to send it just the same.

The way to fix a problem is to know what it is, define it, and come up with a comprehensive plan to fix it. I commend all of the leaders who recently went to Portugal on a fact-finding mission to better understand that country’s approach to decriminalizing drug use and providing treatment for addicts. I have confidence that the delegation from Oregon is on the right track for solving the problem of drug abuse in Oregon.

The insights that some of the members of this team mentioned in interviews with the Oregonian may have provided them some “ah ha” moments. Some of the questions that arose from this fact-finding mission were: Should the focus of responding to the drug problem be police enforcement of laws that target the possession by individual users of illegal drugs? And how should those laws be written? Or should the focus be more heavily skewed toward preventing the distribution of those drugs and more emphasis placed on capture and prevention of drugs entering into the community? And, what combination of the two would be ideal and should be clearly codified and consistently enforced by law and the police?

As a society and culture, Americans still do not have a full understanding of drug abuse. What is it? Why does it exist? Is it simply a set of illegal behaviors, or is it some kind of a reaction to life that needs to be better understood? And, what about the behaviors and/or conditions often found associated with drug abuse: scuffles with the law? offensive and inappropriate behaviors, including threatening behavior or assault? homelessness? And the lack of resources that often may mean that drug abusers can become and remain dependent on the government to provide them the assistance they need, sometimes for long periods of time? How should that be set up, paid for, and sustained?

One of the components of decriminalization of drugs in Portugal has been to crack down on drugs coming into the country and on drug dealers at the local level. The question I have for us are, why does the United States, at all level of government from federal on down to the local city and community agencies, not have a unified drug policy that stops illegal drugs from getting into communities? We know, for instance, that the fentanyl that we get is manufactured in China and Mexico and imported from those countries and probably via other countries as well. If we can know that, why can’t we know how to stop it? The DEA probably already has a pretty good understanding of drug pipelines and major players. But there is not a consistent, clear policy for the elimination of this flow of drugs from those sources. Why is that?

The last thing I would like to address in this note is the drug users themselves. Yes, they have a myriad of problems. And, yes, drug overdoses claim the lives of a lot of them. Socially and culturally, suicide, and the private matter of what people do with their own bodies and their own lives are almost always seen by lawmakers and policy makers as problems that necessarily require state intervention when the resources to address even the most basic and fundamental components of the problem itself are quite limited to begin with. How much of the total resources available to fight the problem of drug abuse should be allocated for the prevention of overdoses? I agree that some money, time, energy, and resources should be provided to help prevent deaths through drug use. But I think we also need to ask how much of a concentration of resources and energy should go into saving lives in the prevention of overdoses by people who abuse drugs when the result of saving those lives does not necessary do anything to change or solve the problem of drug abuse in the community?

So, what is drug abuse? And why does it exist? What are the reasons that people abuse drugs? To those questions we should also try to find an answer, culturally and socially, to the question of whether or not drug use should be considered a private matter. If it ever is considered a private matter, would that change the ways in which we as a culture treat the problem?

Zero Tolerance

by Greg Snyder

Remember elementary school? Taunts? Badgering? Bullying? Were they true? No. But they made you defensive and that made you look weak. What happened to them when you stopped responding to them? They went away. Their power over you was diffused and dissipated. Poof. Don’t give into bullying.

Also, join with others, other parents and groups, to make sure that there is a zero tolerance policy for bullying in your schools and other local institutions.

The Funny Shenanigans of Facebook

by Greg Snyder

I think Facebook sees the bankruptcy of BedBathandBeyond as a big opportunity to make a killing on selling a gazillion fraudulent ads for close out sales that are all frauds.

Facebook is still publishing fake ads linked to fraudulent websites claiming to be close out sales ads for Bed Bath and Beyond which went bankrupt months ago. Why is Facebook still promoting this fraud by continuing to publish these ads?

Censorship, and the algorithms that do it, are alive and well at Facebook. And the special features of Facebook, especially the bots and trolls they let prey on us, of course have absolute freedom to function. And don’t forget all of the ads, for guns, holsters, high capacity magazines, survivalist fatigue fashions, jingo tee shirt, etc. that grace its threads and bombard us all with unwanted advertising.

Facebook invited me and a small group of people to participate in a survey. The first question asked me to quantify how valuable I find the content on Facebook. As with so many surveys, the possible answers were too limited and fixed that of all the possible answers in their multiple choice list of answers for the first question there was not one answer that got anywhere near to what I would have answered. So, I didn’t try to do the survey.

The other day I hid an ad on Facebook from Purina because I believe Purina cat food caused my two cats to die from kidney failure when the corporation was using product manufactured in China that contained ethylene glycol. For that reason I will never buy another Purina product again. Today Facebook sent me another ad from Purina. How’s that for stopping ads after reporting it and removing all ads from this advertiser?

When I report an ad on Facebook and I click on “why am I seeing this ad” and there is another link that says “how can I change my ad preference”, that’s where Facebook tells me that nothing I do will change the ads that it puts on my feed.

When I hide an ad on Facebook and I get a message that says “We won’t show you this ad again” it is has often not been true as ads from this company have reappeared later. It’s sometimes not true but it is not good enough. If I report and ad I don’t want to see ANY MORE ADS FROM THAT COMPANY, not just that particular ad. Because, otherwise, what’s the point of “reporting ads”?

The other day I was having a back and forth discussion with another Facebook user. It was an amicable exchange. I presented my views to try to correct what I thought was the misunderstanding and skewed perception of the other user. We enjoyed a few volleys back and forth but then, apparently, Facebook cut me off because, I assume, Facebook didn’t like what I was saying. I got an “error, something went wrong” message and the conversation was abruptly ended by Facebook. This has happened to me several times over the last few years. When Zuckerberg talks about preserving the right of free speech, he doesn’t bother to mention how he prevents it.

There are more than two things bug me about Facebook but these are the two that are on my mind currently:

Facebook, at times, seems to censor content that it does not want to be published. Facebook allows all kinds of hateful, anarchistic, inflammatory, divisive, and propagandistic content on its platform. But it cannot seem to tolerate certain discussions between individuals having a civil argument. I find that very strange indeed.

The other thing, which is unrelated, about Facebook that really bugs me is that it shoves all of these tons of advertisements down our throats but give us NO WAY to opt out of this barrage of this very often offensive advertising. In reporting ads, Facebook claims that we can change our settings. But it does not simply offer a way to opt out of advertisements.

In the last half hour I have hidden and reported about a dozen ads on Facebook for sniper rifles and a plethora of accessories for them and other sorts of various survival gear sets and gun paraphernalia.

The Evolution of Humanity

by Greg Snyder

Evolution is a long and slow process. Nobody knows where it will take human beings in the future. Some traits and behaviors are genetic. Others are learned and or nurtured. The limbic system in the human brain takes part in human behavior and is responsible for a lot of perception and behavior.

Despite all of these factors, do human beings have any control over how they interact with the world?

For the last century humanity has faced multiple tests:

political turmoil associated with fascism versus the development of a more open, global and cooperative diplomacy;

the growth of industry and the “free market” that has become global versus a more rural, agriculturally-based system that existed along with a simpler marketplace;

the industrialization of the modern life and the dependence on fossil fuels consumption and over extraction of resources mainly by western nations versus good stewardship and protection of the environment;

the ancient habits of corruption by power and military force versus the construction and maintenance of cultures and a society that are just, egalitarian, self-nurturing and sustaining where the resolution of problems is accomplished through mutual work and cooperation;

the acceptance and recognition that all life has value versus the promulgation and encouragement of hatred, divisions, bigotry, scapegoating, discrimination, destruction and death, usually for political reasons;

the purposeful suppression and control of women, minorities, the poor and uneducated, the careful placement of restrictions and controls on the lives of the bulk of the population by the powerful to maintain political control of the masses versus problem solving and inclusion of all people in the processes of participating and being represented in the well being of all people and the planet as a whole.

These are some of the biggest issues facing the evolution of humanity.

Will human beings find a way to create a better world? Or will all of the old familiar problems end up meaning the demise of humanity?

As humans, we can either continue to allow our motivations to steer us toward chaos and destruction. Or we can develop our motivations to create a better world.

It’s a choice.

Interpretations of Law and Order

by Greg Snyder

I just read an article in the Sunday NYT opinion section by Jed Handelsman Shugerman, (henceforth JHS) entitled “A Historic Prosecution Is Also A Legal Embarrassment”.

The author, A law professor at Fordham and Boston University, has objections about this case that focus on procedural steps, matters of jurisdictions, and how the prosecution is being conducted by Manhattan. JHS argues that his concern is law and order. He claims that “The Trump case damages the rule of law and sets a troubling precedent.”

The article is about legal rules, minutiae and procedure. It is not about law and order. JHS completely leaves out the hush money crime or discuss or argue the legality or illegality of Trump’s involvement in it. So where, really, is the discussion about law and order?

The article posits that the technical aspects of litigation are what make law and order. When you ask most regular people what law and order means to them, I think you get an answer that generally states that law and order are about protection and safety and the fair and impartial delivery of justice, and is not about the fine detailed arguments about how court cases and legal proceedings are conducted.

If he is truly concerned about public legitimacy, maybe JHS should consider what most people actually believe law in order is and ask himself:

Is law and order the procedural details and minutiae that form the parameters in which the legal profession works?

Or, is law and order, in the broad public mind set, more about serving justice and not how it’s done?

JHS argues that the 34 charges of the NY indictment are “half charges.” Even after reading his explanation of that term, I still don’t know what he means or what he is intent on doing using it. But I am assuming that the Grand Jury and/or prosecutorial team that determined and wrote the 34 charges against Trump in this case were instructed on how to properly construct and write their charges to fit within legal parameters. I doubt that the Grand Jury and/or prosecutorial team was instructed to write anything that was “half” anything but real charges, no matter how they are presented in a press conference.

The author, it seems to me, has condemned the Grand Jury with his opinion that it did not do its job and that somehow its product just doesn’t meet legal standards. He argues that the indictment by NY follow the precedent of Robert Mueller and that the state and city of NY do as Mr. Mueller did and follow his example. Is there a rule or a standard that dictates that one jurisdiction has to or should follow the exact same procedural and steps that other jurisdictions have followed in order for them to be valid? I didn’t think so.

JHS also argues that because of the delay of six years in proceeding with this case that it is now somehow of less interest and that the need for this trial and allowing for the justice system to follow its course is dimiinished? What he did not mention in mentioning delay is that within that timeline of six years, Trump was involved in two political campaigns and was president for 4 of those six years during which time, legal actions were either frozen or proscribed because of immunity. But the desire to seek justice never abated during that time.

I would like Mr. JHS to consider if what he thinks of as law and order is really just the infrastructure of the legal system itself (he didn’t even mention the other half of order of law and order, the enforcement of law by law enforcement agencies, so he really was only addressing half of what we normally think of as law and order) or the actual administration of justice and law aside from bickering over differences of procedure and minutiae in the law.

If you want to know about public legitimacy of justice, ask the public if what it is concerned about is the fair and impartial delivery of justice, or about how lawyers and the legal profession do what they do and the rules and standards that they follow as a profession.