Connect with us

Politics

New York Gov. Cuomo Propses 17% “Fairness Tax” On Hedge Fund Managers

Published

on

(Via Zerohedge)

We suspect Puerto Rico and Miami may be about to see a mass immigration… from New York state…

Never one to miss an opportunity for some virtue-signaling and wealth distribution, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo announced today, legislation to close carried interest loophole with a so-called “Fairness Fix.”

Under U.S. law, part of income earned by hedge fund managers, private equity investors, venture capitalists and certain real estate investors is known as carried interest and is treated as capital gains, rather than as ordinary income, resulting in lower capital gains tax rates.


This is reportedly costing NY state about $100m/year.


Cuomo proposing legislation treating “this hedge fund compensation” as ordinary income for state tax purposes.


“By imposing a 17 percent “Fairness Fix,” every hedge fund manager working in New York State – including those living outside of the state – will be required to pay their fair share and losses under the federal tax code will be compensated. This proposal could raise nearly $1.1 billion annually and help ease the impacts of the federal tax plan.”


Full Press Release:


GOVERNOR CUOMO ANNOUNCES MAJOR STEP IN CLOSING CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLE WITH NEW “FAIRNESS FIX” TO ENSURE JUSTICE FOR NEW YORK TAXPAYERS


Governor’s Proposal Could Raise More Than $1 Billion Annually


Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced legislation to close the carried interest loophole, deliver fairness to all New York taxpayers, and help alleviate the impacts of the Trump administration’s federal tax plan. This proposal will fix and equalize the tax treatment of income for private equity investors. Currently, investors pay lower tax rates than ordinary New Yorkers on their income by way of the carried interest loophole. The “Fairness Fix” could raise nearly $1.1 billion annually.


“While the federal government stacks the deck in favor of the wealthy and corporations at the expense of the middle class, we are taking action to protect hardworking New Yorkers and ensure fairness and equality,” Governor Cuomo said.


“Closing this egregious loophole will further this administration’s efforts to promote economic justice and establish a fair tax code for working men and women across New York.”


Under current federal law, a portion of income earned by hedge fund managers, private equity investors, venture capitalists and certain real estate investors – known as carried interest – is treated as capital gains, rather than as ordinary income. As a result, this income is afforded favorable tax treatment in the form of lower capital gains tax rates. This loophole costs the state approximately $100 million every year.


To ensure justice for New York taxpayers and take proactive measures to fight back against the federal government’s tax plan, the Governor has proposed legislation that would treat this hedge fund compensation as ordinary income for state tax purposes. The legislation would also impose a “Fairness Fix” to close the carried interest loophole under New York State’s tax code. By imposing a 17 percent “Fairness Fix,” every hedge fund manager working in New York State – including those living outside of the state – will be required to pay their fair share and losses under the federal tax code will be compensated. This proposal could raise nearly $1.1 billion annually and help ease the impacts of the federal tax plan.


The legislation puts forward a comprehensive, regional approach to addressing the carried interest issue, taking effect only if Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania enact legislation having substantially the same effect as this bill.


Governor Cuomo has advocated for hard-working New Yorkers since day one, as Republicans in Washington threaten the economic future of New York State. The Governor has traveled across New York to warn against reforms to the tax code that would increase taxes on New Yorkers by $14.3 billion.


The Governor’s proposal will build on years of action to reduced tax rates for New York’s middle-class to the lowest level in 70 years. In addition, the progressive income tax rate for taxpayers earning over $1 million, which was enacted by the Governor in 2011, will remain in place through 2019.


In 2016, the Governor enacted a multi-billion-dollar tax reduction that will save New York’s middle-class nearly $6.6 billion in just the first four years, with annual savings reaching $4.2 billion by 2025. Over 4 million taxpayers will see an average of $250 in savings next year alone, and $700 annually when fully effective.

While Illinois was the most ditched state in 2017, we wonder if New York will top that list in 2018… on a dollar tax revenue

As we’ve pointed out before, there is a growing wave of domestic migrants that are abandoning over-taxed and generally unaffordable metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, Chicago and Miami in search of better lifestyles in the Southeast and Texas.


As we’ve pointed out before, there is a growing wave of domestic migrants that are abandoning over-taxed and generally unaffordable metropolitan areas like San Francisco, New York, Chicago and Miami in search of better lifestyles in the Southeast and Texas.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

President Trump Returns to Butler to FIGHT for America First

Published

on

Trump’s Return to Butler, PA: A Symbol of Tenacity and Defiance

Today, former President Donald Trump makes a symbolically charged return to Butler, Pennsylvania, the site where his resilience was tested in an unprecedented manner. This visit, on October 5, 2024, is not just another campaign stop but a poignant reminder of his enduring “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra, which has become emblematic of his political persona.

A Historical Backdrop

On July 13, 2024, Butler was thrust into the national spotlight when an assassination attempt was made on Trump during a rally. Surviving with a mere graze to his ear, Trump’s immediate response was to raise his fist, a moment captured in what has now become an iconic image, symbolizing his defiance against adversity. This incident didn’t just scar him physically but also galvanized his supporters, turning Butler into a shrine of sorts for Trump’s resilience.

The Symbolism of the Return

Trump’s decision to return to Butler is laden with symbolism. Here’s why this visit resonates deeply with his campaign ethos:

  1. Defiance in the Face of Danger: Returning to the site where his life was threatened underscores Trump’s narrative of not backing down. It’s a physical manifestation of his “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” ethos, showcasing his refusal to be intimidated by violence or political opposition.
  2. Political Theatre and Momentum: This rally serves as a masterstroke in political theatre, aiming to convert the attempt on his life into a rallying cry for his supporters. It’s an attempt to reignite the fervor seen in the immediate aftermath of the incident, where his campaign saw a surge in support, portraying him as a fighter against all odds.
  3. Uniting the Base: By revisiting Butler, Trump not only honors the victims of the incident but also uses the location to unify his base. The rally is expected to be a blend of remembrance and a call to action, emphasizing themes of perseverance, security, and defiance against the establishment’s perceived failures.
  4. A Message of Strength: For Trump, every appearance since the assassination attempt has been an opportunity to project strength. Returning to Butler amplifies this message, suggesting that neither personal attacks nor political challenges will deter his campaign or his message.

The Broader Impact

The “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT” mantra has transcended its initial context, becoming a broader call against what Trump describes as systemic failures, from immigration policies to disaster response, as seen in his critiques of the current administration’s handling of events in North Carolina, echoed in his and his allies’ posts on X.

This return to Butler isn’t just about revisiting the site of a traumatic event; it’s a strategic move to encapsulate his campaign’s spirit in one location, making it a pilgrimage of sorts for his supporters. It represents Trump not just as a politician but as a symbol of resistance and persistence, key themes in his narrative of reclaiming America.

In sum, Trump’s rally in Butler today is more than a campaign event; it’s a testament to his campaign’s core message: a relentless fight against adversaries, be they political opponents, critics, or even those who threaten his life. This event is poised to be a significant moment in the 2024 presidential race, leveraging trauma, resilience, and defiance into political capital.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.