Are Cash for Clunkers Rewards Subject to Taxation?
Claim:  Incentives received by consumers through the "Cash for Clunkers" program are subject to taxes.  Origins:   People are often surprised to find out that zero-cost items (e.g., prize winnings, free  goods offered as marketing promotions, items given as gifts) may not require any immediate outlay of money, but they frequently do later  in the form of taxes on the value of the goods and services received.   gifts One group recently caught by such a surprise was some consumers who took advantage of the federal government's CARS program (commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers"), which offered incentives of up to $4,500 to those who traded in qualifying "clunkers" and purchased new vehicles.   Although incentives received through participation in the CARS program are not taxable at the federal level, residents of some states may have to pay some form of state and/or local taxes (such as excise or sales taxes) on the value of the incentives.   Residents of Maryland, for example: As it turns out, each state determines whether to tax the clunker money. Pennsylvania doesn't, for example, but Maryland applies its 6 percent excise tax to the incentive. "We treat that $4,500 as a down payment toward [the] car. We still tax the total value of the car," says Caryn Coyle, a spokeswoman with the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration,  which collects the excise tax. And you can't, say, travel up to Pennsylvania to buy your new car there to avoid the Maryland excise tax. States have pacts with one another to collect taxes owed on car purchases by residents in other states, Coyle says. So a Pennsylvania dealer would have charged the Maryland excise tax anyway if [the car had been bought there]. If it's any consolation, there's no federal tax on the clunker incentive and you may be able to deduct on your federal tax return any state or local taxes paid on a new vehicle purchased this year from Feb. 17 through Dec. 31. And Nebraska: Nebraskans who take advantage of the government's Cash for Clunkers rebate might be surprised to learn those rebates of $3,500 or $4,500 don't reduce the amount of sales tax a car buyer must pay. State Tax Commissioner Doug Ewald says he's received a number of complaints since the program started, but officials anticipated the issue and made sure that dealers knew about it beforehand. Nebraska law treats the government's clunker rebates as a "third-party rebate," so they don't reduce the taxable value of the new car like a trade-in or manufacturer's rebate does. So someone buying a $25,000 vehicle with the $4,500 clunker rebate would still have to pay taxes on $25,000. And South Dakota as well: [M]any of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable. "They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," [Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam] Nelson said. In North Carolina, however, the CARS incentives are subject to neither the state's highway use tax nor its income tax: According to the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, "the highway use tax should be calculated on the final sales price of the purchased vehicle less the amount allowed for the trade in." As an example, if you bought a car with a $20,000 price tag and the dealership gave you $3,000 for your trade-in, then you got the $4,500 Cash For Clunkers incentive, you paid $12,500 for the car. That's the amount you've paid plus 3% as the standard Highway Use Tax. Hence, you are not paying taxes on the $4,500. The North Carolina Department of Revenue says because the incentive is taken as a coupon at the dealership, you will not have to file it as income on your taxes. Consumers who took advantage of the CARS program should check with their state tax departments for information about whether such incentives are taxable in their home states. Last updated:  29 August 2009    Neisteadt, Shawn.  "Some Surprised by 'Clunker' Tax.'"   KELO-TV [Sioux Falls, SD].  24 August 2009.    Zash, Chelsi.  "Can the Cash for Clunkers Incentive Be Taxed?"   WFMY-TV [Greensboro, NC].  24 August 2009.    Associated Press.  "Neb. Clunker Buyers Still Pay Full Sales Tax."    Newsday.  21 August 2009.    WJRH-TV [Tulsa, OK].  "Is Your Tax for Clunkers Taxable?"    21 August 2009.
Claim:  The U.S. government prohibits high mileage Volkswagen Passat automobiles from being purchased by U.S. customers.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2012] VW Passat 78.5 MPG in the UK  Below is an email about the VW Passat that is made in the USA which gets over 70MPG but is not allow to be sold in the USA.  Just one more Washington Red Flag.I have included a short youtube video and a link to VW UK web site which confirms video is correct. Checked out VW web site and you can order any car they have for sale unless you are a US Citizen. As a US Citizen VW will not deliver the higher mileage cars they manufacture in the US to US Citizens. This is true and can be verified by just trying to buy one of these cars with the blue motion engine for shipment from the US to any destination in the US. I didnt go to the Ford UK web site to check out Ford but Rick has and he says Ford has several models for sale manufactured in the US with mileage of better than 71 miles per gallon on the highway that also are available for sale in Europe but not the US.  VW Web Site: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/ https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/  Origins:  May 2012 saw the circulation of the message cited above, one which claimed that Volkswagen Passat vehicles with 70+ miles per gallon (MPG) figures manufactured in the U.S. were readily available in the UK, but U.S. government regulations prohibited their being sold to U.S. customers.  These claims appear to be misleading, however. First of all, a UK gallon is not the equivalent of a U.S. gallon: 1 UK gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallons, so MPG figures for automobiles in the UK are inflated by 20% relative to U.S. figures.  Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for determining average mileage ratings is generally more stringent than the process used  in other countries, so EPA ratings tend to be on the conservative side.  Therefore, taking both factors into consideration, a car rated at 70 MPG in the UK would likely be EPA rated somewhere around the mid- to high-40 MPG range.  Second, we found no evidence of U.S. government regulations that would prohibit the sale of automobiles such as the referenced Volkswagen Passat in the United states solely because of their mileage ratings.  In general, when an automobile manufacturer offers a particular model of vehicle in other parts of the world but not the U.S., it's because that model has features that don't appeal to U.S. buyers or because the model does not meet U.S. safety or environmental standards.  In the case of the Volkswagen Passat models mentioned here, their lack of availability in the U.S. is likely due to a combination of those factors. Others have noted that U.S. consumers tend to focus less on mileage and prefer gasoline-powered cars with automatic transmissions and larger, higher-performance engines, but the UK version of the Passat cited here is a diesel-powered car with a manual transmission and a smaller, lower-performing engine: The UK Passat engine is very small (the 0-60 time is 12.5 seconds with a manual transmission) and most Americans won't accept such poor performance. Diesel fuel doesn't have a tax-preferred status here in the U.S. either, and the engine is probably at a premium cost due to new technology. What's more is that vehicles in the UK (but not the U.S.) are taxed by carbon emission, so vehicles in the UK are sold with a much wider choice of engines, usually including diesels and far smaller engines than are available for these vehicles in the U.S., because there is a high cost of operating the vehicle already (i.e., higher fuel prices) and these engines minimize the carbon tax portion. The dynamics of car ownership and manufacturing cars in the US versus the UK is vastly different: it's not really the regulations that are to blame.  Manufacturers don't bother to get U.S. EPA certifications because they know that the demand isn't there, especially right now when the demand is for hybrid (or at the really high end, electric). I doubt that such a car would be viable to sell: people in the U.S. don't put much stock in to gas mileage in comparison to power demands. If you are going to charge a premium, you have to offer something noticeably different, and diesel probably isn't going to pass muster for most folks.  Diesel vehicles in the U.S. have a bad reputation. Also, as reported in a Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) article on this topic, a Manager of Product and Technology Communications for Volkswagen of America Inc. stated that: article VW used to sell the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe here in the US. But it didn't sell very well. It was too expensive and too small in the mid-size sedan segment. So they came up with a larger version with a better price point; and of course the size effects the mileage. Volkswagen's response to our query was non-committal, stating only that they could not say when Bluemotion technology vehicles like the UK version of the Passat would be available in the U.S. We recognize that in this current economic climate, the desires of the driving public have changed.  Many consumers have realized that efficiency and economy are the true values of an automobile. Emissions standards have increased, and we are working to be both ecologically responsible and provide fuel efficient vehicles people want. VW continues to research all options for fuel efficiency. We have no further information at this time if, or when the Bluemotion technology will be available in the US. Last updated:  14 May 2012 Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires."   Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture." Scam:  Telephone solicitors call out of the blue looking to hook you up with thousands of dollars worth of government grants (aka free money) they say you're eligible for. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS AROUND $250 Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] There is a telephone scam that is targeting people across the nation. The caller identifies himself as a representative of the Government Grant Association. The caller then leads the person to believe they have qualified for a government grant and in order to pay out the grant they need the persons bank account number or they have the account number and need the person to verify the account number.   Origins:  A new form of the "prepayment" con has been blanketing the US throughout 2004. Through it, the unsuspecting are lured by the promise of government grants into agreeing to have an "up-front fee" (usually $249) siphoned from their bank accounts. Though the fee is taken immediately, the grants never materialize, leaving those who have been led to believe they were about to be enriched to the tune of thousands of dollars sadly disappointed and a few hundred dollars poorer. "Prepayment" frauds are far from brand-spanking new  many successful flim-flams hold out the carrot of big money (which never materializes no matter how hard it is chased after) to seduce the gullible into parting with some of their hard-earned funds. Those so gulled have acted on the belief they were arranging hard-to-secure loans at very favorable rates, often with distant countries said to be rabid with desire to lend to Americans. Or they were promised access to little-known and almost-forgotten college grants. Or they received the news they'd won foreign fabulous wealth in lotteries they had no recollection of entering. Even the venerable Nigerian scam is a prepayment con: though its victims initially believe that for helping distressed foreigners move large sums of cash from their country they will receive millions of dollars, very early into the process they discover they will have to dole out innumerable sums to various folks to bring this about. lotteries Nigerian scam Folks conned via prepayment schemes mistakenly believe they stand to gain vast amounts of something for practically nothing. Acting on that faith, they willingly part with funds they would ordinarily be loathe to spend yet which by comparison to the prizes about to be gained momentarily appear to be relatively small sums.  The 2004 'government grant' fraud operates on that principle. Those contacted by such cheats are told they are entitled to lay claim to government grants worth anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000. In return for their banking information and what now seems an insignificant processing fee  of $249, said grants will be directly deposited into their accounts. Those who suspect something might be wrong with the notion of the government handing them money for no discernible reason are told they are eligible for this form of largesse as a reward for their having paid their taxes promptly for the past few years or because they're senior citizens. Folks who further quibble with the process are issued all manner of guarantees, including the provision of 800 numbers to call if at any time they wish to bow out and have their up-front fees refunded. "Supervisors" may join phone conversations between scam artists and their potential pigeons to assure those evincing doubts about the government wanting to give them money that everything is meticulously legitimate. The doubters may also be given the addresses of web sites to examine which, they are told, will explain in far greater detail how these grants operate. These promises and seeming proofs serve only one purpose, and it is not the protection of the consumer  they work to lend an air of legitimacy to the pitch so as to soothe the suspicions of those about to be taken. Very few will think to call those numbers; they will instead trust that what they have been told are guarantees are in fact valid ones. Those inquisitive enough to dial those 800 numbers find they either go unanswered or have been disconnected.   Those operating versions of this scam have in the past identified themselves as representatives of granting agencies with the names of the Government Grant Center, Consumer Grants USA, Ultimate Funding Inc., Government Grant USA, Federal Government Information Center, Federal Government Grant Information Center, National Grant Center, Federal Research Funding, Customer Care Plus, and Department of Revenue. However, that a purported grant facilitation entity is not listed above in no way proves it is on the up-and-up, so no comfort should be taken from its absence. Swindlers routinely invent impressive-sounding names and titles for themselves and the entities they supposedly represent. "That's what scam artists do," said Pat Coakley of the Better Business Bureau, "they operate under a variety of names and phone numbers, then leave town and start all over again under other assumed names." As to how the con is run, one of our readers who was contacted by someone intent upon victimizing him with the 'government grant' scheme reported this exchange: [Bryan]    Good morning, this is Bryan. [Swindler]   My name is Alec Watson. (Female with a Indian or Pakistan accent.)  [Bryan]   This is Bryan. [Swindler]   Can I speak with Bryan P. please? [Bryan]   Speaking. (I never answer in an affirmative manner anymore. I once had my long distance carrier changed because I said yes when they asked me if I was Bryan. Once they recorded my yes they had me saying yes to anything.) [Swindler]   Again, my name is Alec Watson from the Las Vegas Government Grant Processing Center. And you have been approved to receive an eight thousand dollar grant. We would like to verify your information. Do you live at _____? Do you still work for _____? [Bryan]   Correct. Why would I get a grant for $8,000? [Swindler]   We have noticed that you have paid your taxes on time for the last 20 years. Can you please verify your bank? [Bryan]   North Island Financial Credit Union. [Swindler]   Can you tell me what your bank routing number is? [Bryan]   No, I cannot. [Swindler]   Bryan, we can process you for $8,000 for a full free grant. We can automatically withdraw the processing amount from your back account. Do you think that a cost of $257 is worth receiving $8,000? [Bryan]   Well, if you're charging me $257 then it isn't free, now is it? [Swindler]   I can give you a few minutes to get your checkbook. [Bryan]   I am at work. I do not have a checkbook with me. (Not kidding  my wife knows better then to send me to work with a checkbook during the holidays.) [Swindler]   A deposit slip? [Bryan]   No. [Swindler]   Sir, we cannot finish without your banking routing number; can you call someone at home and receive it? [Bryan]   Why can't you subtract the money from the grant? [Swindler]   Because we are not allowed to touch the grant money. Did you get your checking information yet? [Bryan]   Please remove me from your calling list. [Swindler]   Bryan, you don't want the $8,000? We are not authorized to remove you. [Bryan]   Ok, I found you on the web and it says you are a rip off. Please let me talk to a supervisor. [Swindler]   CLICK As Bryan experienced, the quite-reasonable question of "Why can't you deduct the fee from the funds you'll be sending me?" is always countered by the claim that it is impossible to do so. Others who have been party to such come-ons report being told laws precluded the use of the grant (or loan or scholarship or lottery prize) for anything other that its designated purpose, which included barring use of even a small part of those funds for payment of processing fees. Bryan's example also shows how much he was pressured to provide his banking information. Someone less aware of the possibility of being conned might well have given up that number under such a barrage.  The scam succeeds as well as it does thanks in part to the many television commercials touting free government money. (Such advertisers are vending books containing the contact information for a variety of government grants, loans, and subsidies.) Though there are genuine government grants to be had, they are not available to just anyone for no purpose. Forget about the ads on TV  there are not untold troves of government funds available just for the asking. Grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria having been met for specific programs. Such grants are very strictly administered, require the completion of a great deal of paperwork, and are overseen at every step. These are not "Fill out a simple form, then cash a huge check" types of propositions; these are "Prove to us that you qualify under this program then, provided you are engaged in the activity we are interested in fostering, we might subsidize some of your costs" sorts of deals. The hoops to be jumped through are many and varied, and there is precious little by way of a freebie to it. Regarding the government grant scam, keep these three points in mind: The U.S. Government does not telephone people to offer them grants.  Grants are never guaranteed, nor are they issued for no apparent purpose, so folks should be downright suspicious of any talk of grants where the words "free" or "guarantee" are bandied about.  Real government grants require extensive documentation with great attention to detail. There is nothing simple or painless about securing a government grant. How To Avoid Falling Victim To Prepayment Scams: Above all else, have nothing to do with 'deal of a lifetime' offers that require payment in advance of fees. Do not fall in with schemes whereby you are required to prepay taxes on lottery winnings, or pay to have a prize shipped to you, or are to be charged a loan application fee. Do not pay someone for the privilege of working for them.  With regard to 'free government grants' come-ons, disabuse yourself of the notion that the U.S. government is in the business of providing grants (aka free money) to whichever of its citizens have made it their habit to pay their taxes on time. (Rather, the U.S. government offers a disincentive to those who are tardy with their payments  it assesses penalties for deadlines missed and charges interest on the amounts overdue.)   Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing."     Mulkins, Phil.  "Tell Us Your Bank Account Number, Etc., Etc."   Tulsa World.  16 August 2004  (p. A2).    Roesler, Richard.   "Agencies Warn of Grant Scheme."   [Spokane] Spokesman Review.  23 July 2004  (p. B1).    Sabatini, Patricia.  "Never Give Unknown Callers Bank Account Number."   Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  22 October 2004  (p. B16).    Williams, Fred.  "Scam Uses Phone to Get 'Up-Front Fees.'"   Buffalo News.  20 October 2004  (p. B7).    Wyoming Tribune-Eagle  "BBB Warns Local Consumers About Government Grant Scam."   2 December 2004  (p. A2). UPDATE, Oct. 14, 3:30 p.m.:This fact-check has been updated to include additional comment from Kimberly Klacik. The rating is not changed. Conservative commentator Kimberly Klacik posted a photograph of empty supermarket shelves, with a hashtag falsely suggesting they were depleted by President Joe Bidens policies. A look at #BuildBackBetter, Klacik wrote above the photograph in the Oct. 13 post shared on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The hashtag was an apparent reference toBuild Back Better,Bidens COVID-19 relief, economic and infrastructure plan. Supply chain disruptions have affected grocery stores throughout the pandemic and continue to hit some U.S. markets especially hard, theWall Street Journal reported in August. But the photograph that Klacik shared is not from a U.S. store, nor was it taken during the Biden administration. Kimberly Klacik's Oct. 13 tweet, since deleted, was missing context. The giveaway was the prices shown on the shelves. Theyrelistedin British pounds, not U.S. dollars. The original photograph appeared with aneditorial published by the Guardianon March 27, 2020, about supply-chain disruptions during the earliest wave of the pandemic. Empty shelves at a Tesco store in Worcester, the Guardians photo caption says. Klacik is a Republican who lost her 2020 campaign for a U.S. House seat representing most of Baltimore. She deleted the posts soon after posting them. Asked about the posts, she told PolitiFact: Build Back Better is used in the U.K. She didnt say whether her posts were meant to refer to U.K. stores or economic policies. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has used the same slogan and hashtag to describehis Conservative governments pandemic recovery plan. The Independentreportedthat Biden formally launched his plan first, but Johnson had been using the phrase throughout 2020. But the March 2020 photo long predated either leaders economic recovery plans. After this fact-check was published, Klasic claimed that she deleted the posts to prevent confusion. Even after Klacik deleted her tweet, screenshots of it remained online. PolitiFact was able to view the Facebook and Instagram posts via CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. They were flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) We rate the posts False. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. After decades of fits and starts, Hillsborough County commissioners agreed to ask voters to consider a 1 percent sales tax increase for expanded bus service, light rail and road improvements. The issue will appear on the November ballot. One question many voters want answered: How much will the new tax cost me? In a brochure outlining how rapid transit can boost the economy and ease traffic congestion, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit says the tax will cost the average family $12 a month. That figure comes from the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organizations long-range transportation plan. It puts the cost of a 1 cent sales tax for the average family at $142 a year, and the average for a single person at $85 a year. The MPO came up with those numbers by plugging the countys household incomes into the IRS sales tax deduction calculator, available on the agencys Web site. The IRS developed the calculator because tax rules allow people to deduct either sales taxes paid annually or state income tax from their federal returns, and the calculator enables them to arrive at a reasonable estimate without having to save a basket of receipts. MPO planner Beth Alden said she used average household income rather than median income. The number weve been using is the higher one, just to be more conservative, she said. The countys average family of three has a household income of $77,852, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A single households average income is $44,832. We plugged those figures into the IRS calculator and it showed the average family would pay $141.83 a year in local sales tax, which currently is 1 percent. A single person would pay $91.50.Thats virtually the same as the MPO estimates. The figure does not include sales taxes on major purchases, such as cars, mobile homes or construction materials for a house. Those are listed separately on tax returns. The county sales tax on items worth more than $5,000 is capped, meaning the maximum amount paid on any single item would be $50. But how accurate is the IRS calculator? Skeptical observers say it spits out a low figure. Its in the IRS interest to have that on the lower end, obviously, to decrease the deductions, said Rusty Spoor, a tax accountant at Foley & Lardner. He guessed the calculator could be as much as 30 percent off. Like other tax experts, he noted its impossible to determine exactly how much people pay a year in sales taxes without saving receipts, so the IRS calculator is a useful tool. Thats the best of the poorest options, he said. I dont think that numbers great, but its the best starting point. The calculator is based on spending patterns captured in the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, IRS spokesperson Florida Mike Dobzinski said. Thats the best method for calculating how much people pay in sales tax, according to Frank Williams, chief economist for the Florida Department of Revenues Office of Tax Research. It should be fairly close, he said. It may understate it by 2 to 5 percent, but thats just a gut feel.Opponents of the sales tax say it will cost residents much more than the MPO estimates. Jim Hosler, a demographer running for Hillsborough County commissioner, initially figured it would cost households nearly $400 a year. He came up with that number by dividing the estimated revenue from the tax  about $174 million, according to the Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations  by 454,000, the approximate number of households in Hillsborough County. That comes about $383. Trouble is, residents arent the only ones who pay sales taxes. Tourists, commuters and businesses also pay them. Experts say theres no way to know exactly who pays what, but most estimate that non-residents bear about 20 percent of the tax burden. Under that calculation, the cost is $307 per household. But that spreads out sales taxes equally among all households, regardless of income. And a household that earns $200,000 a year will pay much more in sales taxes than a $20,000 household, simply by virtue of having more disposable income. Hosler concedes his number may be high. But their number is definitely a low number, he said. The real number is probably somewhere in between. Clearly there are a number of ways to calculate the figure, and the result for all of them is a somewhat imprecise. Still, our research shows that the number in the brochure is very close to the one provided by the MPO, and HART used a recognized, legitimate source in coming up with the figure. The IRS calculation, while perhaps on the low side, is a recognized standard. So we rate the statement Mostly True. In a tweet that preceded West Virginias buck firearm season, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice encouraged West Virginians to purchase a hunting license. In the tweet, he offered an economic rationale -- that hunting is an economic engine for the state. In theNov. 5 tweet, Justice wrote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttp://wvhunt.com.#WV#WVHunt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttps://t.co/burilhQECG.#WV#WVHuntpic.twitter.com/btBNdz4TR6 State offices have thrown around the figure more than once. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources sent atweeton Nov. 24 that used the same dollar figure, adding that deer hunters in particular spend an estimated $230 million in West Virginia, much of it in the rural areas of the state. We wondered: Do bucks, and other game, really bring the state 500 million bucks? When we contacted Justices office, Jordan Damron, the governors assistant legal counsel and digital director, cited it to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. A Nov. 14press releasefrom the division includes the $500 million figure and said that hunting is estimated to be responsible for 5,400 jobs and $35 million in sales taxes on goods and services spent in West Virginia. The news release said the numbers came from Southwick Associates, a research firm focusing on outdoor markets. TheSouthwick Associates reportsaid that there had been $421,819,113 in retail sales in West Virginia, with a multiplier effect raising that amount to $552,085,233. The multiplier was used  to estimate the total amount of spending that occurs in the economy as a result of hunters spending. The report also said that 5,377 jobs were created through hunting and $35,544,522 in state and local taxes were gathered due to hunting. The amount spent on deer hunting alone was $291,972,745. So the numbers cited by Justice exist. But well offer a few caveats. First, the report is from 2012 and the data is from 2011. Though Justice offered a specific-sounding figure, the actual figure might have grown or shrunk in the subsequent seven-plus years. Second, multiplier effects are estimates and are highly dependent on the assumptions used. Different assumptions will lead to different results. Using the retail sales figure without the multiplier adjustment might have been a more defensible approach. Finally, the report says it was funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and produced in partnership with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The association represents government officials who oversee hunting, but the National Shooting Sports Foundationbills itselfas the firearms industry trade association. This means that the NSSF is an advocacy group that has a vested interest in promoting hunting. As with any advocacy group, its data should be understood in this context. Justice said that hunters contribute more than $500 million to West Virginia. This statistic comes from a comprehensive, 50-state report, but its worth noting that the data is more than seven years old, that it uses an estimate of economic impact beyond just retail sales, and that the report was funded by an industry trade group. We rate the statement Mostly True. On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch.  According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt  the basics  The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds.  National debt  the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy  despite having the same level of debt  will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.  While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative.  For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent  a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion.  Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible:  Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it.  Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple  the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time.  Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again.  That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017.  2011 2013 2015   Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms.  Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt  public debt and intragovernmental holdings  was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day  even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the  national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services.  "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt".
 TreasuryDirect.gov.  1 April 2016. On 23 August 2018, amid news of the plea deal of Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen and the conviction of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort on eight counts of financial crimes, President Trump sat down with Fox and Friends Ainsley Earhardt for an interview. The topic of impeachment was broached by the President himself, who ruminated that "I don't know how you can impeach somebody who's done a great job."  His follow-up to that remark quickly became the topic of online memes: interview  Indeed, President Trump suggested that removing him from office would have catastrophic financial ramifications for the U.S. financial markets and for all Americans, because the country's economy could not survive being stripped of his "thinking":  That same day, CNBC reported the market "had little reaction so far to Trump's renewed legal troubles, adding that "traders say the market ... expects Trump to avoid impeachment unless the special counsel investigation can tie the president directly to collusion with Russia to sway the 2016 election." reported Melloy, John.  "Trump Says the Stock Market Would Crash If He Were Impeached: 'Everybody Would Be Very Poor'."
  CNBC.  23 August 2018 On 3 March 2017, the web site USPOLN published an article which contained several quotes ostensibly uttered by Senator Paul Ryan, including one statement in which he supposedly asserted about birth control that "If there was a legitimate way to have intercourse and not get pregnant, God would have included it in His holy books":  article   This article was framed as presenting portions of a discussion between Ryan and CNN host Jake Tapper, and the introductory paragraph replicated a legitimate exchange between Ryan and Tapper about health care reform and birth control that took place on 13 November 2016: legitimate House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) refused to say if some women would lose access to birth control benefits after Republicans repeal President Barack Obamas health care reform law. The Wisconsin Republican promised during an interview on CNN that the repeal of Obamacare would lower the costs of health care by providing vouchers to poor Americans. CNN host Jake Tapper noted that many women were paying nothing for birth control thanks to an Affordable Care Act mandate. Is that going to end? he wondered. Look, Im not going to get into all the nitty-gritty details of these things, Ryan replied curly. The remainder of the article, however, was completely fabricated. For instance, Paul Ryan never said this: Im not a preacher, nor am I a holy man, but the fact to the matter is that Obamacare is bad for our economy, its bad for Americans, both poor ones and ones who arent, overall, its a bad program and a bad piece of legislation and thats why its gotta go, Ryan argued stubbornly, all the while ignoring the question. And if our biology allowed for a safe way to have intercourse, if we were meant to have intercourse completely naturally and not get pregnant because of it, then God would have included something about it in one of his Holy Books. Now, I havent found anything on the subject  and not for lack of looking, Jake  have you, perhaps?  Or this: Now, how would you feel, Jake, if someone were to take a huge chunk of your hard-earned money and use it to give something to someone youve never met? Ryan asked the host. And the worst part is  nobody asked Americans whether or not they agree to their taxes being raised to help people they dont know, that very fact goes against the essence of capitalism. Its not effective and its not efficient, which makes it the wrong solution from the start. Thats why it needs to be repealed. The other part of the reason why women shouldnt be allowed to use birth control at all is the fact that, in doing so, theyre committing murder and that goes against everything this country stands for. Ryan didn't say any of this during his CNN interview with Jake Tapper on 13 November 2016, or at any other time and place. USPOLN bills itself as a "hybrid" site that publishes a mixture of "satire" and real news, but unlike other hybrid sites such as Newslo, which allow users to click a button revealing which portions of articles are true and which are not, USPOLN provides readers with no mechanism for distinguishing between fact and fabrication. If they did, the introductory paragraph would have been highlighted as "true" while the remainder of the article would have been marked as "satire." hybrid Newslo The actual interview between Tapper and Ryan can be viewed below:  Edwards, David.  "Paul Ryan: Access to Birth Control for Women Is Nitty-Gritty Detail Not Worth Talking About."
  Raw Story.  16 November 2016. USPOLN.  "Paul Ryan: 'If There Was A Legitimate Way To Have Intercourse And Not Get Pregnant, God Would Have Included It In His Holy Books.'"
  3 March 2017.