President Obama and the Ice Bucket Challenge
Claim:  President Obama refused to participate in the ALS Association's "Ice Bucket Challenge."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Tea Party.net posted on Facebook that President Obama refuse to take the ice bucket challenge from an 86 year old woman who did take the challenge.  Is that true and how did this 86 year old lady submit her challenge to the White House to begin with, etc.  Is is also true that the original challenge was either do the ice bucket or contribute 100 dollars to your favorite charity compared to the way it is going around now?   Origins:  In August 2014 the online world was hit with the "Ice Bucket Challenge," a playful competition that encouraged netizens to douse themselves with buckets of ice water, and challenge others to do the same,  Ice Bucket Challenge as a method of raising awareness and donations for the ALS Association (ALSA)  a national non-profit organization that provides services to persons with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrigs Disease) and helps to fund research into the disease. As of mid-August 2014, ALSA was reporting it had surpassed $10 million in "Ice Bucket" donations. ALS Association reporting As described on ALSA's web page about the "Ice Bucket Challenge," that phenomenon seeks both to raise awareness of ALS (through people actively taking the challenge of dumping buckets of ice water on their heads and posting videos of their activity on the Internet) and to raise funds for ALS research (through donations provided by those who prefer making financial contributions rather than dousing themselves with ice-cold water): The challenge involves people getting doused with buckets of ice water on video, posting that video to social media, then nominating others to do the same, all in an effort to raise ALS awareness. Those who refuse to take the challenge are asked to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice. One of those who accepted the "Ice Bucket Challenge" was 86-year-old Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who took part in a mass challenge event on 10 August 2014 involving numerous members of the Kennedy clan and others, then challenged President Obama to do the same, declaring "Welcome to Cape Cod, President Obama. I nominate you": challenge event  The White House responded by stating that President Obama's contribution would be financial rather than participatory: responded The President appreciates Mrs. Kennedy thinking of him for the challenge  though his contribution to this effort will be monetary. The President [will] be making a donation to an ALS charity this week. Did President Obama therefore "refuse" to take the "Ice Bucket Challenge"?  If one considers the whole essence of the challenge to be pouring ice water over one's head to raise awareness of ALS, then perhaps so. But, as described on the ALSA web site, the challenge also involves raising donations for ALS research from those who decline to participate in the "dousing yourself with ice water" portion and are instead asked "to make a donation to the ALS charity of their choice," and President Obama honored the spirit of the challenge by agreeing to the latter aspect. Last updated:  19 August 2014
In April 2015, a rumor started circulating online holding that CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin had said, "Don't hire veterans. They can't be trusted with authority":  In later versions, this rumor was presented as Baldwin's having said, "Don't hire veterans. They're too damaged to be trusted with authority":  Baldwin, however, never said this. The quote "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority" is a very loose paraphrase of a passage from her 28 April 2015 interview with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland about the importance of police training:  "We talk about training, we talk about having officers. I was talking to the city councilman last week who was saying, 'Brooke, these people have to live in the community. There's a lack of emotional investment.' And a lot of these young people  and I've been talking about them so much. A lot of young people  and I love our nation's veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle." Baldwin's actual comment about how some veterans might not make good police officers because "some of them are coming back from war [and] they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle" was rather far from the claim that she had stated "Don't hire veterans, they can't be trusted with authority." Still, many viewers (and many who didn't even see the interview) found Baldwin's words to be offensive. Shortly after the interview aired, Baldwin issued an apology via Twitter: apology  Baldwin also clarified her comments and issued an on-air apology the following morning: apology  "I absolutely misspoke. I inartfully chose my words a hundred percent, and I just wish, just speaking to all of you this morning ... I wholeheartedly retract what I said. I've thought tremendously about this, and to our nation's veterans  to you, I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform, and I wanted you to know that this morning. So to all of you, I owe you a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry." On June 3, 2021, Nigerian website Pulse.ng published the headline, "UNICEF report says blocking children from watching pornography violates their human rights." Citing a May 13, 2021, story from right-leaning, U.S.-based, non-profit Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam), the Pulse story opened with a blurb in bold text that read: headline story The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has come under criticism after it has released a report which says exposure to pornography may not always be harmful to children because it prepares some of them for adulthood. The story was picked up by by right-leaning Canadian site Post Millennial, which ran the headline, "New UN-backed study claims there's 'inconsistent evidence' that children are damaged by accessing porn." right-leaning headline None of those headlines was accurate. Rather, the stories distorted portions of a April 2021 discussion paper published by UNICEF titled, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Childrens Rights Online across the Globe." The paper didn't claim that blocking children from accessing porn violates their human rights, nor did it say that exposure to it may not always be harmful. published The paper instead noted that some countries render access to porn illegal for all age groups, while various countries have differing standards for what they define as porn. As a result, some educational materials dealing with sensitive topics like sexuality might be defined as "porn" by some governments. In one section titled "Parental controls and supervision," the paper's authors state the following about parental-monitoring systems: This approach is likely most suitable for younger children, because it may infringe on childrens rights to access information and to freedom of expression where their Internet access is censored at an older age. Practically speaking, it is also likely that older children will be able to circumvent parental controls. This section makes no mention of pornography. The paper also noted that, "the evidence is inconsistent, and there is currently no universal agreement on the nature and extent of the harm caused to children by viewing content classified as pornography." This statement followed a discussion about how many children are known to access pornography online, and how often, and a discussion about the degrees of harm inflicted, as well as various types of content they may be exposed to: There is conflicting evidence regarding how many children worldwide are accessing pornography online, and how often. Some studies have found that boys are more likely to experience greater exposure to pornography at an earlier age, and they are more likely to be exposed to violent or abusive images such as rape, whereas girls are more likely to be subject to involuntary or problematic exposure. In other words, UNICEF's report didn't state that viewing porn doesn't harm children. It pointed out that research into the extent of harm is complex and incomplete. Some on social media falsely interpreted the C-Fam headline to mean that UNICEF tested out pornography viewing on children: interpreted   survey A UNICEF spokesperson told Snopes in an email that it took the discussion paper down because it was being misrepresented in a way that didn't reflect UNICEF's position. Updated to note that UNICEF took the discussion paper down because a portion of it was being misrepresented. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, an email from U.S. President Donald Trump's reelection campaign alleged millions of mail-in ballots were erroneously sent to people who did not request them. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Donald Trump here "Millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them," claimed a Nov. 16 email obtained by Snopes.   The claim implied people "who never asked" for mail-in ballots wrongfully received them, and, because of that, the election was tainted with fraud and Americans should reject the results of the popular vote. Firstly, let this fact be clear: Americans have been voting by mail since the Civil War in the 1860s. In the modern era, the majority of states for years have allowed anyone to request an absentee ballot and submit it via mail  while others only allowed people to vote absentee if they provided a qualifying reason for why they cant make it to a designated polling station on Election Day, such as illness, physical disabilities, travel, or work. Meanwhile, five states allowed all eligible voters in all elections to submit ballots entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  while other states permitted local jurisdictions to run elections by mail under certain circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, put new pressure on the country to expand existing vote-by-mail systems to avoid spreading the virus at polls. COVID-19 pandemic Several states passed new laws to allow all eligible residents to vote by mail, per the National League of State Legislature's compilation of state laws governing mail-in voting in 2020, or added "COVID-19" to their list of reasonable excuses to request an absentee ballot. National League of State Legislature's compilation But at the core of Trump's allegation about "millions of mail-in ballots" being sent to people who didn't want them were states' varying rules regarding ballot applications. Most states  but not all of them  require voters to submit an application that expresses their desire to vote by mail in order to receive the official ballot paperwork to cast a vote. Additionally, some states permit voters to apply for "permanent absentee ballot status" so they automatically receive ballots via mail each election and do not need to submit applications for each one. The NLSL stated: The ways in which voters may request a ballot vary, as do the deadlines for submitting the application to the local election official. Some states regulate who can distribute or collect applications for delivered ballots as well. Once the application is received, states have a process for verifying that the application did indeed come from the intended voter before sending a ballot to that voter. That said, the handful of states that have for years conducted elections entirely by mail  Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah  send ballots to every person listed in their respective databases of eligible voters, no application necessary. With COVID-19, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Vermont also conducted the 2020 presidential election that way  every eligible resident received a ballot in the mail to vote for Trump or Biden, per NLSL. Additionally, Montana allowed counties to decide whether they would conduct the election that way, no requests for mail-in ballots necessary. So, considering the number of registered voters in those 10 states (there are more than 4.2 million in Colorado alone) there's some truth to the claim "millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who never asked for them" in the Trump-Biden race, if you consider the application process the step in which people "ask for" ballots.  Colorado However, that argument is flawed by the fact that recipients of those ballots at one point registered to vote. And, in at least a handful of the 10 states, by registering to vote, they were joining a vote-by-mail system that sends ballots without applications first. In short, it is false to imply that millions of ballots were improperly or erroneously mailed in the 2020 election, or suggest that the system was a nefarious scheme to undermine Trump. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign attempting to sound the alarm on a fictional election conspiracy asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. Brendan Fischer tweeted In sum, while it was true millions of mail-in ballots were sent to people who did not submit applications for them in the 2020 presidential election, it was a mischaracterization of states' election laws to frame that fact as evidence of impropriety or fraud. Rather, the ballots were sent to registered voters in accordance with state laws. For those reasons, we rate this claim "false." 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. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. -- the author of a budget plan that won approval from the Republican-held House but which was assailed by Democrats because it proposes significant changes in how Medicare works -- gave a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on May 16, 2011. In it, he criticized President Barack Obama on tax policy.Ryan said that his own budget plan makes the tax code simpler, flatter, fairer, more globally competitive and less burdensome for working families and small businesses. By contrast, the president says he wants to eliminate deductions, but he also wants to raise rates. That includes raising the top rate to 44.8 percent. That would amount to a $1.5 trillion tax increase on families and job creators.A reader e-mailed us to ask whether the president really wants to raise rates to 44.8 percent, since the most widely discussed Obama tax proposal is to reinstate marginal income tax rates that were in effect for the wealthiest taxpayers before approval of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. As the reader pointed out, Obamas proposal to let Bushs tax cuts lapse would raise the top marginal income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent -- not to the 44.8 percent that Ryan cited.We began by asking Ryans staff what he had meant by using that figure. Spokesman Conor Sweeney forwarded us a document that provided the reasoning that Ryan used to get to the 44.8 percent.Heres the relevant portion of that document:Top statutory rate, 2010: 35 percentExpiration of 2001/2003 lower rates, 2011: 39.6 percentPEP/Pease provisions reinstated, 2011: 41.6 percentNet 2.3 percent Medicare tax on wages/salary: 43.9 percent0.9 percent nondeductible Medicare tax,2013: 44.8 percentWeve already discussed the references to the 35 percent and 39.6 percent figures. Heres a rundown of the rest:PEP/Pease. These are two caps on how much income is subject to taxation for wealthy Americans. (Most Americans do not earn enough to trigger them.) The first, the personal exemption phase-out, limits the benefit of the personal exemption for taxpayers earning above a set amount of income. The second sets a similar cap for itemized deductions. The two taxes were steadily reduced under the Bush tax cuts, disappearing entirely for 2010. The two caps are set to be revived in 2012, like the rest of the Bush tax cuts, unless Congress and the president agree to  intervene.Ryans staff and tax experts we consulted with disagreed somewhat over how big a hit the PEP and Pease revivals would be, but their estimates ranged from about 1 to 2 added percentage points. So on the low end of that scale, Ryans estimate is slightly high, but the difference is modest.Medicare taxes. Currently, the Medicare tax is 2.9 percent, split evenly between the employee and the employer. The new health care law would add a 0.9 percent, nondeductible tax to the employees side, so the new total is 3.8 percent, of which 2.35 percent is borne by the employee and 1.45 percent by the employer. To that employee share, Ryan added almost a percentage point to account for what he sees as lower employee salaries due to the employers share of the payroll tax. On balance, Ryan estimates the combined net increase from Medicare taxes to be 3.2 percent.So for Medicare taxes as well, Ryans staff made some assumptions that would be open to critique. But once again, the range of possible rate increases is fairly small -- about one percentage point.So even if you dont buy Ryans assumptions, the most hed be off in his final number is about 2 percentage points.Now, how about the way Ryan described his number?Usually, weve seen politicians use the term the top rate to refer to the marginal income tax rate for the highest tax bracket, not that tax rate plus several other taxes. So, one could say that using the 44.8 percent figure is a subtle way of adding an extra 5.2 percentage points to Obamas tax proposal, making it look more draconian.But when we asked both liberal and conservative economists what they thought about Ryans phrasing, most were largely untroubled.For non-tax people, I suppose he could have specified that 44.8 would be the combined marginal tax rate, though it's not clear that would have helped the average person understand, said Dan Mitchell, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute. Short of engaging in lengthy digressions, I'm not sure what Ryan could have done differently.If Ryan had used a specific definition of the tax rates in his speech, such as the effective marginal income tax rate, then that would be misleading, added J.D. Foster, an economist with the conservative Heritage Foundation. But he didnt, Foster said, and that gives him some space to define what he means.Dean Baker, a liberal economist, said hed give Ryan a pass on this. Ryan left out that most of the rates listed in the document would be reverting to prior levels, rather than being imposed for the first time by Obama, Baker said. However, on balance, Baker said he feels that Ryans statement is largely true.So where does this leave us? On Ryans number, its possible to argue that the actual rate is as low as 42.8 percent rather than 44.8 percent, but thats open to debate. On his description of what the number means, Ryan -- particularly given that he was working from a prepared speech -- could have been clearer by saying something like, The various parts of Obamas tax agenda would together push the highest marginal tax rate up to 44.8 percent.Still, the figure Ryan used is close to what the tax rate would be if Obamas agenda is followed, and a cross-section of economists we asked thought that Ryans presentation of that number was reasonable. On balance, we rate it Mostly True. A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information. internet users iterations following quote For attractive lips, speak words of kindness. For lovely eyes, seek out the good in people. For a slim figure, share your food with the hungry. For beautiful hair, let a child run his or her fingers through it once a day. For poise, walk with the knowledge that you never walk alone. People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. Remember, if you ever need a helping hand, youll find one at the end of each of your arms. As you grow older, you will discover that you have two hands, one for helping yourself, the other for helping others. The beauty of a woman is not in the clothes she wears, the figure she carries, or the way she combs her hair. The beauty of a woman must be seen from in her eyes, because that is the doorway to her heart, the place where love resides. The beauty of a woman is not in a facial mode, but the true beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It is the caring that she lovingly gives and the passion that she shows. The beauty of a woman grows with the passing years.  Image via Pinterest.  Proving that even the famous go in for glurge, Hepburn, who died in 1993, was not the original author of the quoted list of beauty tips. However, she considered the quote one of her favorites and quoted it in public a number of times. Its true author was humorist Sam Levenson (who said, "Insanity is hereditary: You can get it from your children"). glurge However this confusion started over who wrote the piece, it's clear Hepburn never had a hand in any of it beyond repeating a favorite essay in public, always carefully crediting its author. That some have now come to think of this as "her" list is a regrettable misattribution. Biographies of Hepburn maintain that, as a 13-year-old, she did indeed serve as a courier and occasional secret messenger for the Resistance in World Word II (like many other children in Holland), carrying messages and illegal leaflets stuffed into her socks and shoes. Biographies In addition to her fabled acting career, which included the 1953 Best Actress Oscar for "Roman Holiday," Hepburn was a long-time activist for charitable causes and, in 1988, was named the official spokesperson for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF). Roman Holiday United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund When asked in January 1992 if she had any personal beauty secrets besides Levenson's philosophical tips, she said, "If I had them, I'd make a fortune. But I know what helps  health, lots of sleep, lots of fresh air, and a lot of help from Estee Lauder." Donnally, Trish.  "This Beauty Shares Her Tips."The San Francisco Chronicle.  27 January 1992  (p. D5). This article was updated to meet Snopes' current standards for article formatting and include recent examples of the claim. In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. voted A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." tweet The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5  Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023 July 13, 2023  However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. replies We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Twitter account July 11, 2023, (Screenshot via Twitter/TheRealOJ32)  Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k  O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023 July 11, 2023  Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. acquitted 2008 Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. acted USA Today Hollywood Reporter won Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike, rather it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption. As such, we rate this claim as False. Barco, Mandalit del. "Hollywood Actors Go on Strike, Say It's Time for Studio Execs to 'Wake Up.'" NPR, 13 July 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187310535/hollywood-actors-strike-sag-aftra.Accessed 14 July 2023. Gardner, Eriq. "O.J. Simpson's Former Attorney F. Lee Bailey Gets Bad News About His SAG-AFTRA Pensions." The Hollywood Reporter, 4 Oct. 2017, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/oj-simpsons-attorney-f-lee-bailey-gets-bad-news-his-sag-aftra-pensions-1045756/.Accessed 14 July 2023. News, A. B. C. "26 Years Ago, OJ Simpson Was Acquitted: Timeline of His Life and the Sensational Trial." ABC News, https://abcnews.go.com/US/key-moments-oj-simpsons-life/story?id=48724637. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson | Actor, Producer." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001740/. Accessed 14 July 2023. "O.J. Simpson Acquitted." HISTORY, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/o-j-simpson-acquitted. Accessed 14 July 2023. Peter, Josh. "O.J. Simpson's Finances Will Be Closely Watched If Paroled." USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/07/19/o-j-simpsons-finances-closely-watched-if-paroled/493639001/. Accessed 14 July 2023. Vercammen, Paul. "O.J. Simpson to Focus on 'friends, Family and Golf,' Live in Gated Community after Release." CNN, 29 Sept. 2017, https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/29/us/o-j-simpson-parole-release-road-to-freedom/index.html.Accessed 14 July 2023. 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