When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicansagree with it.
One of President Barack Obamas signature issues at the moment is a push to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour. Its such a popular policy, he said in aspeechon March 5, 2014, that even Republicans have little quarrel with it. When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage, Obama said, not only is it good policy, but the majority of the country, including half of Republicans, agree with it. We wondered whether polling data backed up this claim. So we looked at independent polls taken recently that asked about the minimum wage. A review of the polling data suggests a more nuanced situation than Obamas claim suggests. Our first look at the data showed that a minimum-wage hike is popular among Americans broadly. For instance, when theCBS News-New York Timespollasked, Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? in February 2014, the poll found 65 percent support. And that was actually down a bit from the 72 percent support registered in the January edition of the poll. Similarly, aPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll from January asked whether respondents supported an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour and found 73 percent support. But what about Republicans specifically? More than half of Republicans favor a minimum-wage increase, polls found, but in most of these polls, less than half of Republicans supported raising the wage to $10.10, the amount Obama is seeking. One poll that did not specify a target amount for the minimum-wage hike was conducted byQuinnipiac University. It asked, Would you support or oppose raising the national minimum wage, which is now $7.25 an hour? Among Republicans, 52 percent expressed support, while 45 percent said they opposed it. That provides some support to Obamas claim. But once respondents were asked by other pollsters about the $10.10 figure -- a roughly 40 percent increase from todays federal minimum wage -- Republican support sagged. The clearest example is aCBS-New York Timespollfrom February that asked, As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour. Do you favor or oppose raising the minimum wage to $10.10? Republicans expressed 42 percent support, 54 percent opposition. Another clear example was anABC News-Washington Postpollfrom December, 2013 that asked, The minimum wage in this country is now $7.25 an hour. What do you think it should be? Among Republicans, only 21 percent favored keeping it the same or lowering it, but even fewer respondents -- 7 percent -- favored a minimum wage in excess of $10. Two other polls showed Republican support close to 50 percent, but falling just short. However, the differences were within the margin of sampling error -- it's possible that more than half of Republicans were in support of a $10.10 wage, though also possible that the actual support level was even lower than the official result. ACBS-New York Timespollfrom January that asked the same question as the February poll found that Republicans expressed 48 percent support, 51 percent opposition to a $10.10 wage. And anNBC News-Wall Street Journalpollfrom December 2013asked, I'm going to mention a number of different amounts and for each one, please tell me if you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose raising the hourly minimum wage to that amount. When presented with the $10.10 rate, 47 percent of Republicans expressed support. One poll clearly supported Obamas position. The JanuaryPew Research Center/USA Todaypoll found 53 percent of Republicans backing a $10.10 minimum wage, with 43 percent opposed. The significance of the $10.10 figure is not academic. According to a March 6accountin theWashington Post, early last year, White House strategists rejected (the $10.10 figure), worried that it could destroy jobs and anger the business community just as the regulation-heavy Affordable Care Act was about to take effect. Instead, former officials say, the White House settled on a more cautious path,unveiling a $9-an-hour minimum wageproposal  a target even lower than Obamahad proposedduring the 2008 campaign. However, thePostreported, the lower amount disappointed advocates for the working poor, as well as congressional Democrats, who were already pushing to set the $7.25 wage closer to $10 an hour. Over the past year, Obama reconsidered, casting off initial concerns in favor of unifying his party ahead of this falls midterm elections. In other words, White House officials had long realized there was a difference in the degree of public support for a $10.10 minimum wage and a smaller hike, so it would be misleading for Obama to now imply that majority Republican support for an unspecified minimum-wage hike means that Republicans automatically support the presidents proposal to raise the wage to $10.10. Our ruling Obama said, When I talk about (raising the) minimum wage ... half of Republicans agree with it. Republicans do support a minimum-wage hike if you don't specify a dollar figure. But once you mention the $10.10 target Obama wants, his case gets shakier. We rate the claim Mostly True.
Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. If you havent heard U.S. Rep.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, say she is fighting for the middle class in her bid for the U.S. Senate, you havent been listening.But you can be forgiven. The gubernatorial recall all but filled Wisconsins political bandwidth until the election was held June 5, 2012.Now, more attention will turn to Baldwin and the four Republicans seeking to succeed Democrat Herb Kohl in the November 2012 Senate election.Baldwin sounded the middle class theme in attacking the best known GOP candidate, former governorTommy Thompson, in amemoreleasedto the media May 30, 2012.She declared:Thompsons tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent.The 1 percent are people with incomes over $343,000, according to the memo.Sounds like a good deal for them. But is Baldwin on target?Baldwins evidenceBaldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin's is based on a flat tax provision in a tax reformplanthat Thompsonreleasedin April 2012.Two paragraphs in the four-page document are devoted to the flat tax.For two years, individual taxpayers could opt to file a tax return with a 15 percent rate, or file a return using existing exemptions. After two years, Thompson would move to an across-the board flat tax with provisions to encourage savings, investment, home ownership and support for charities, the plan says.Heres the Baldwin math:In 2009,accordingto the latest figures available from the Internal Revenue Service, the top 1 percent of federal income tax returns amounts to nearly 1.38 million people. They all earned more than $343,927.That group generated just over $1.32 trillion in adjusted gross income, which resulted in a total of just over $318 billion in income taxes paid.Had a 15 percent flat rate been in effect, the 1 percent would have paid $198.7 billion in taxes or $119.3 billion less, under Thompsons plan.That means those taxpayers would have paid an average of $86,502 less in income taxes.Thompson campaign spokesman Brian Nemoir noted that tax rates ranged from 10 percent to 35 percent in 2009 (as they do now). He said Thompsons plan better balances the nearly half of all Americans that dont pay income taxes against the nations top 1 percent of earners, who pay 37 percent of the income taxes collected.As for Baldwins figures, he said her analysis seems sufficient.While Thompson's proposal lacks enough detail for analysis, the Tax Policy Centerevaluatedthe more detailed 15 percent flat tax plan advanced by Newt Gingrich during his 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination. The center concluded that no one, regardless of income, would see a tax increase under Gingrich's plan. Under onescenario, which divided all taxpayers into five groups based on income, all five groups would get a tax cut under Gingrich's plan.So, its likely Thompsons plan would benefit many more groups than the 1 percent cited by Baldwin, who is using that approach to bolster her underlying point.As for the specifics of Baldwin's claim, we ran her numbers by three tax experts: Tax Policy Center senior fellowRoberton Williamsand Tax Foundation economistMark Robyn, both in Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance presidentTodd Berryin Madison.All three said Baldwin is generally on target, but that Thompsons plan is too short on details to know for sure whether Baldwins $87,000 figure is on the money.Williams said Baldwins numbers, on their face, are accurate.Its a back-of-the-envelope calculation, thats what it is, said Robyn.Robyn and Berry agreed the 1 percent would almost certainly get a tax break under Thompsons plan, but they couldnt say whether Baldwins figure is accurate because Thompsons plan doesnt specify what deductions and exemptions might remain under his flat tax and who would qualify for them.Her calculations are probably overstated a little, but we dont know how much, said Berry.Our ratingBaldwin said Thompson's tax plan amounts to an average tax cut of almost $87,000 for the top 1 percent and Thompson didnt refute the figure.Tax experts said Baldwins figure is in the ballpark, at least as an estimate, but that Thompsons flat tax proposal lacks too much detail to know for sure.Baldwins claim is accurate but needs additional information -- our definition of Mostly True. In the midst of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic that broke out globally in the first part of 2020, some social media users shared what they claimed was a prediction of that pandemic back in 1551 by the 16th century astrologer (and alleged soothsayer) known as Nostradamus: There will be a twin year (2020) from which will arise a queen (corona) who will come from the east (China) and who will spread a plague (virus) in the darkness of night, on a country with 7 hills (Italy) and will transform the twilight of men into dust (death), to destroy and ruin the world. It will be the end of the world economy as you know it.  Michel de Nostradame was an astrologer who lived in France in the 1500s and is most famous today for the poetic quatrains he wrote for his book, "Les Prophties," which many enthusiasts now claim foretold various significant historical events. Nostradamus wrote a lot of stuff so general (and obscure) that with the help of a little imagination (and some liberal interpretations from the original French), people have claimed he has "predicted" nearly every event of significance since the mid-16th century. But this particular viral prediction was not expressed in quatrain form, nor could we find anything like it published in "Les Prophties." We also found no mention of this supposed prophecy prior to the events of early 2020, which generally indicates it is a modern hoax. find published Nostradamus.  Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus.
  Wordsworth Editions,  1999. On July 25, 2010, David Gregory, the host of NBC'sMeet the Press, asked his roundtable panelists to consider Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, aWall Street Journalop-ed column from July 22, in which Sen. James Webb, D-Va., argues against federal affirmative action laws.I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship, Webb wrote. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.Marc Morial -- president of the National Urban League, a century-old civil rights organization -- was one panelist who took the challenge, arguing that non-whites continue to experience disadvantages compared to whites.I don't agree that Latinos and Asians have not suffered discrimination in this country or that Native Americans have not suffered discrimination in this country, Morial said. I think the question is, how do you target and tailor policies that are going to help all economically and socially disadvantaged people. And it's a fair debate to have, but it also needs to be positive with facts. Look at the Latino unemployment rate. It's higher than the white rate. The black rate is higher than the Latino rate. So to suggest that there are not disparities that affect the Latino community, that affect the Native American community, most in depth, the African-American community, we've got to have the discussion that Jim Webb wants to have. We have facts, real facts, that give a picture of how life is in this nation.We won't take sides on Webb's proposal to end policies that provide race-based advantages, a topic that inspires passions on both sides, but which isn't a checkable fact. Instead, we'll focus on the narrower question of whether Morial is accurate on the question of comparative unemployment rates for whites, blacks and Latinos.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates seasonally adjusted unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. We found that in June 2010, the white unemployment rate was 8.6 percent. The black unemployment rate was 15.4 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino rate was 12.4.So Morial is correct that the Latino unemployment rate is higher than the white rate and that the black rate is higher than the Latino rate.Though it falls beyond the boundaries of our fact-check, we'll note one other point from the statistics. Morial argued that Latinos and Asian Americans have suffered discrimination in the United States, and we think most people would agree with that at least as a historical matter. But if you look at the unemployment rate for Asians, it's 7.7 percent. That's actually lower than the rate for whites. (Technically, the BLS only calculates a non-seasonally-adjusted rate for Asians, but the comparable rate for whites is still higher at 8.7 percent. )Still, as we indicated, Morial made no specific claim about unemployment among Asian-Americans, and for the groups that he did mention -- whites, blacks and Latinos -- his numbers were accurate. So we rate his comment True. Claim:  John McCain would not be eligible to draw a pension after serving two terms as president.   . Example:   [Collected via e-mail, August 2008] Retirement - Mr. President A point to ponder ... A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old. Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension. Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November. How's that for non partisan thinking? Origins:  We're not sure whether the above-quoted bit of electioneering about presidential pensions was meant to be taken seriously, or whether it was intended to be light-hearted or sardonic, but regardless its basic premise is incorrect. It is true in broad terms that since John McCain is twenty-five years older than Barack Obama (they'll be 72 and 47 years old, respectively, at the time of the next  presidential inauguration), the former would probably draw a smaller aggregate pension as a former president than the latter would.  (There are no guarantees, of course, since we never know what Fate might have in store for anyone.)  It is not true, however, that if John McCain served two terms as president, he would draw no pension at all due to his having reached the maximum age limit (80) by then.  The pension payments allocated to former presidents are lifetime benefits and do not end or expire once a recipient reaches a particular age. Under the terms of the Former Presidents Act (FPA), former presidents are entitled to "a taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive department" (currently $191,300).  This pension is a lifetime benefit that begins "immediately upon a President's departure from office at noon on Inauguration Day."  (Presidential widows receive lifetime pensions of $20,000 per year.) FPA In fact, pensions constitute a relatively small fraction of the federal funds that are provided for the maintenance of former presidents, who also receive Secret Service protection, free mailing privileges, travel funds, and allowances to maintain and staff their offices.  (Secret Service protection for presidents who began serving after 1 January 1997 is no longer a lifetime benefit and is now limited to ten years.)  As the chart below indicates, these additional benefits typically add up to far more than the base pension amount:  All of these expenditures on former presidents are but a drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. federal budget, which currently totals about $3 trillion per year. budget Since both John McCain and Barack Obama are members of the U.S. Senate, whichever one doesn't win the upcoming presidential election will still have a congressional pension to look forward to. Last updated:  14 August 2008    Sources:   Alexander-Bloch, Benjamin.  "Former Presidents Cost U.S. Taxpayers Big Bucks."   The [Toledo] Blade.  7 January 2007.    Smith, Stephanie.  "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits."   Congressional Research Service.  18 March 2008. One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks:  However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples  not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion  so widely spaced in time and so differing in circumstances as to be non-useful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity: investigation Washington, D.C., June 4, 2003 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on Dec. 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, at the time a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York has obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest). settled Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue  the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. dispute By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, however, so they took what was then a novel tack: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money. He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. conviction In a literal sense Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected (and the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities). Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons  maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them). prosecution At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud in order to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who  along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley  owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. portfolio Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes: tax evader Some of [Helmsley's] luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987 a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn, a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsleys bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt  the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is a difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the monies owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances as well liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though: contended Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million, and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the I.R.S. that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he said, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller: contested During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. Were talking about old taxes, he said, adding: Were not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if Im not paying taxes while Im doing whatever Im doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true. The accuracy of Mr. Sharptons assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharptons assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased, to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions. tax evasion Buettner, Russ.  "Al Sharpton Criticizes New York Times Report on Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  19 November 2014. Buettner, Russ.  "As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes."
  The New York Times.  18 November 2014. Nemyaug, Enid.  "Leona Helmsley, Hotel Queen, Dies at 87."
  The New York Times.  20 August 2007. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "Al Capone Sentenced to Prison for Tax Evasion on This Day in 1931."
  Forbes.com.  17 October 2018. Wood, Robert W.  "10 Notorious Tax Cheats: Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley Proved Little People Can Put You in Jail."
  Forbes.com.  17 April 2015. Wood, Robert W.  "Lessons From Rev. Al Sharpton's $4.5 Million Tax Bill."
  Forbes.com.  19 November 2014. Department of Justice -- Office of Public Affairs.  "Tax Crime Does Not Pay."
  10 April 2018. Johnson, Carrie.  "Stewart to Pay $195,000 in Settlement of Civil Suit."
  The Washington Post.  8 August 2006. Kratsas, Gabrielle.  "13 Infamous Tax Cheaters."
  USA Today.  28 February 2014. During ongoing national debate over a novel policy of separating families at the border, a photograph circulated (originally from Joshua Feuerstein, a self-styled "American evangelist, Internet and social media personality" who last made headlines in 2015 when he manufactured a so-called "Christmas cup controversy") that purportedly depicted a room full of immigrant children that former President Barack Obama had supposedly removed from their parents' custody: novel policy a photograph circulated self-styled Christmas cup controversy immigrant children The attached text read:As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #shareSome versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image:Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States:The meme's text read:INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOOHey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!!The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities:Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil.The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo:Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year.The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others.Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base:The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014.A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care.... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported.Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration.  The attached text read: As you stare at this picture of innocent children being separated from their parents at the border and feel your hatred toward President Trump start to boil over from the bowels of your soul...I'd just like to point out it was taken in 2014 .. when Obama was President! #share Some versions were shared with no accompanying text, inviting readers to project their own interpretation onto the image: Images of its type (dated to the Obama administration) were often described as having been ignored at the time they were originally taken. However, this image did appear in anti-immigration memes from 2014 and 2015, such as one framing the photograph as evidence the Obama administration (described here as a "cabal") was encouraging ("seducing") immigrant ("illegal alien") children to come to the United States: described   The meme's text read: INSIDE AN OBAMA APPROVED REFUGEE CAMP 140,000 Illegal Alien Children Seduced into coming to America By the Obama Cabal. MORE COMING NEXT YEAR TOO Hey Obama.. Why not use the FEMA CAMPS??Or are those being prepped for Patriot Resistance Fighters!! The first iteration we could find of that image was alongside a 5 June 2014 post published by Breitbart. Although Breitbart shared the photograph on Facebook on 21 June 2018, the outlet did not include a link to its earlier reporting. In its original article, the children were described as "unaccompanied," indicating that they came without their parents, not that they were separated from their families by American authorities: published Breitbart Breitbart unaccompanied Breitbart Texas obtained internal federal government photos depicting the conditions of foreign children warehoused by authorities on U.S. soil on Wednesday night. Thousands of illegal immigrants have overrun U.S. border security and their processing centers in Texas along the U.S./Mexico border. Unaccompanied minors, including young girls under the age of 12, are making the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico, through cartel-controlled territories, and across the porous border onto U.S. soil. The photograph was subsequently disseminated by numerous web sites and news outlets. National Review's "Immigration Bedlam" said of the children in the photo: National Review Immigration Bedlam Some 6,775 unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossed the U.S.Mexican border in 2011, the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement reports. (The first bar in the ORRs chart, above, should read 20032011.) ORR expects 60,000 UACs this year. This number could reach 130,000 in 2015. Detaining them for $252 each, per day, will cost taxpayers $453.6 million per month this year and could cost $982.8 million per month next year. The image and events around it were widely reported for several months, appearing in the Houston Chronicle, Splinter News, the Los Angeles Times, Mashable, and Reuters, among others. widely reported Houston Chronicle Splinter News Los Angeles Times Mashable Reuters Stories during that time specifically reiterated that the photographs showed unaccompanied minor children in the custody of United States Customs and Border Protection and temporarily housed at a Texas Air Force base: The photos have a timestamp of May 27, 2014. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the agency has not officially released any photos at this time in order to protect the rights and privacy of unaccompanied minors in our care. ... A temporary shelter at Joint Base San Antonio Lackland has housed and provided services to 1,820 unaccompanied minors from Central America since May 18, San Antonio Express-News reporter Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje reported. The immigration is part of a surge of children said to be fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries, she reported. Although the photograph is real, it does not show children separated from their parents by the Obama administration. In June 2014, the image was published as part of numerous news stories (and occasionally alongside editorial pieces objecting to the presence of the unaccompanied minor children.) The image did not develop a different backstory until June 2018, during a controversy that specifically involved family separation at the behest of the Trump administration. family separation DeRuy, Emily and Jorge Rivas.  "Disturbing Photos Allegedly Show Texas Border Patrol Facility Packed With Immigrant Children."
  Splinter.  6 June 2014. Darby, Brandon.  "Leaked Images Reveal Children Warehoused In Crowded U.S. Cells, Border Patrol Overwhelmed."
  Breitbart.  5 June 2014. Hennessy-Fiske, Molly.  "Hundreds Of Migrant Youths Held At Texas Military Base."
  Los Angeles Times.  5 June 2014. Murdock, Deroy.  "Immigration Bedlam."
  National Review.   13 June 2014. Parker, Kolten.  "Leaked Photos Show Immigrant Children Packed In Crowded Texas Border Facilities."
  Houston Chronicle.  6 June 2014. Roug, Louise.  "How The U.S. Border Became A Humanitarian Crisis."
  Mashable.  8 July 2014. Reuters.  "U.S. To Open Third Military Base To Illegal Child Immigrants."
  9 June 2014 In December 2017, a set of photographs posted to Facebook led to accusations that Eddie Bauer clothing stores destroyed leftover clothing instead of offering it for donations or leaving them intact so that they could be worn or resold. The post described several Eddie Bauer-brand clothing items left damaged and discarded outside the manufacturer's store in New York City: post Eddie Bauer in NYC threw out blankets and coats and CUT THEM UP SO NOBODY COULD TAKE THEM! This is capitalism! Imagine a system where you DESTROY excess goods instead of distribute them. This happens while thousands in NYC will sleep on the streets tonight.   The post's author, Dakotah Lilly  an organizer with the advocacy group Students and Youth for a New America  also provided us with a separate picture of a damaged jacket bearing the logo of Eddie Bauer's First Ascent line: group line   Regarding the attention the post has generated, Lilly told us: I didn't think people would be so surprised that a corporation would do something like this in pursuit of profit. But obviously I'm not surprised that people are upset by it. They should be! But they should know that this is routine, and we need to change the way the system works, not just one company. Lilly also said that Eddie Bauer had contacted him regarding his photographs, but he was not confident they would respond to the apparent issue: The way things are, it wouldn't make sense for them to. Our economic system rewards people based on who can screw the little guy the best. A spokesperson for Eddie Bauer told us that the company was aware of the New York store mentioned in Lilly's post "having to dispose of some jackets," but that cutting them up and discarding them was not company policy: All Eddie Bauer products carry a lifetime guarantee; therefore, we receive returned products for various reasons ranging from a normal defect such as broken zipper or small tear, to heavily soiled and damaged items. These returned products that are deemed unsellable are shipped to our main distribution center where they are sorted. Any products that can be donated or salvaged are done so. Eddie Bauer is working with that specific store to determine why the jackets had to be disposed of, and why this seems to be an isolated occurrence at that store. The spokesperson also said that the company donates product samples to a New York City-based charitable group, Delivering Good, which distributes clothing and home-related products to people in need. We contacted Delivering Good to confirm whether there is a partnership between the two groups. group, Lilly is not the first person to accuse the clothing maker of damaging and then discarding unsold products rather than offering them to charity; in March 2010, consumer awareness blog Consumerist published an account from a reader who said she witnessed similar dumping by the company. published Claim:  President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil!  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins:  The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S.   Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:  [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order.  On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime."    We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States.  The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies  large and small  to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate    The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields.  In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for  Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed    Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004),  and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras.  However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by  George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm  sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold   In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that  American  not foreign   workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information:  Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans  Last updated:  10 February 2010 Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013