We have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now.
If theres one issue that binds Republicans, its a preference for low taxes. So its no surprise that in the first debate of the 2012 presidential campaign -- held May 5, 2011, in Greenville, S.C. -- the topic came up.At one point, Fox News commentator Juan Williams asked Gary Johnson -- the former Republican governor of New Mexico and a strong libertarian -- about corporate taxation.Gov. Johnson, Williams said, the nation's unemployment rate is 8.8 percent and this week, jobless claims rose to their highest level in eight months. Among your proposals for getting the private sector to start hiring are eliminating corporate income tax, doing away with the federal minimum wage law and to stop extending unemployment benefits. Isn't that just a windfall for big business?Johnson responded, Well, absolutely not. I think that repealing, or doing away with the corporate income tax is simply getting us back to where we were. And we need to understand that the corporate income tax is a double tax -- that we all own the corporations, and when income gets distributed to us, we pay the tax on that. So, we have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. Let's abolish it.We have looked at the question of whether the United States has the highest corporate income tax in the world inpreviousitems, so we thought wed revisit it now.There are two primary ways to compare corporate tax burdens. One is to compare statutory corporate tax rate -- the rate thats actually on the books.The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of more than two-dozen large, industrialized democracies, publishes the rates of its member countries. The most recent data shows Japan on top at39.54 percent, vs. 39.21 percentfor the United States. Japan had been scheduled to cut its corporate tax rate to a level below the United States, but the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that crippled portions of the country earlier this yearhas left thatin doubt.The other way to look at it is to gauge what firms actually pay, once exclusions and other adjustments are taken into account. This is called the effective tax rate.The World Bank hasassembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. It factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Johnson doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, Johnsons claim was more limited, addressing only corporate taxation.To be more accurate, Johnson should have said the United States has the highest corporate tax rate rather than the highest corporate taxes. By using the term corporate taxes, Johnson opens the door to the broader World Bank figure, which would put a number of other major countries above the U.S. in the rankings.That way of looking at it would undercut Johnsons argument. On the other hand, he is close to correct when using the two more common benchmarks -- statutory tax rates (in which the U.S. trails only Japan, for now) and effective rates (where the U.S. trails only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand). On balance, we rate Johnsons statement Mostly True.
On 24 September 2016, the Associated Media Coverage fake news site, which has now rebranded itself as the Boston Tribune,  published an article reporting that a woman with a concealed carry permit had saved multiple lives by stopping a department store shooter: article 37-year old Lisa Harris saved the lives of multiple people after using her concealed carry pistol to take down a department store shooter in Virginia. According to witness statements, the shooter, who has since been identified by police as 41-year old Randall Pierce, entered Bradfords department store Saturday evening at approximately 5:10 PM. According information provided by Chief of Police Matthew Collingsworth during a press-conference, the security footage provided to investigating officers by the Bradfords loss prevention department shows an agitated Randall Pierce walking briskly throughout the department store for approximately 6-minutes prior to retrieving a .223 caliber AR-15 assault style rifle concealed under his long-jacket. There was no truth to this report. Associated Media Coverage is a well-known purveyor of fake news that has been shamelessly exploiting recent occurrences of gun violence by publishing fabricated clickbait stories reporting similar incidents (in this case playing on the 23 September 2016 shooting deaths of five people at the Cascade Mall in Burlington, Washington). purveyor deaths Although many readers may now be familiar with Associated Media Coverage's reputation, the site has recently started publishing articles under the banners of fictitious newspapers such as The Boston Tribune and The Baltimore Gazette:  While Associated Media Coverage may be changing their name to The Boston Tribune, their content is still nothing more than fake news. This years primary elections are getting so nasty that Lithonia Congressman Hank Johnson has taken to calling them slimary elections.In an op-ed on liberal website The Huffington Post, Johnson, a Democrat, blamed the viciousness on super PACs, political fundraising organizations that can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations and unions alike.In the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations, Johnson wrote in the Feb. 24 article.Those are some big bucks, wealthy people, and generous businesses. We wondered if Johnson got his numbers right.Super PACs became legal after a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision. They are an object of ire for those who think they can be used to buy elections and help donors obscure their identities.A Johnson spokesman said the congressman got his data from articles in Politico and Roll Call. The stories, which ran Feb. 8, lay out the findings of Auctioning Democracy: The Rise of Super PACs & the 2012 Election.The report was authored by left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocacy group. It argued that super PACs skew American politics by giving outsize influence to wealthy donors who hold views that do not represent those held by the broader public.Johnsons account matched both news accounts descriptions of the Auctioning Democracy report. One of these descriptions could have been more precise, but they were not unreasonable.From the advent of super PACs to the end of 2011, donors have contributed a total of $181 million in what are called itemized individual contributions to super PACs, the report states. These are contributions from donors who give more than $200. Super PACs must report donor names once their contributions pass this threshold.The report did not tally contributions by small donors, said Adam Lioz, a Demos official and an author of the report.Demos and U.S. PIRG found that 196 people donated $100,000 or more to super PACs, which is just shy of 200 individuals. Calling them super-rich is polarizing, but its reasonable to assume that people who can afford to make a $100,000 donation have unusually high incomes.We used the reports findings to calculate that donations of the super-rich amounted to about 43 percent of total contributions. This is some 7 percentage points lower than the roughly half figure that Johnson used.For-profit businesses contributed 17 percent of itemized donations, the report states. This is just shy of the 20 percent Johnson cited.We checked with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for more transparency in government. It is the source of much of the data used in the report, so we wanted to get the organizations take on the numbers. A spokesman said they found no problems with the conclusions of Auctioning Democracy.But for the sake of due diligence, we compared the reports numbers to data published by the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps a rolling tally of super PAC contributions on its websiteOpenSecrets.org.The data from the CRP and the Auctioning Democracy report are not easy to compare. They track contributions over different time periods, and the CRP tallies a broader pool of contributions.However, we felt an analysis of the CRP data would give us a rough sense of whether Demos and U.S. PIRG overstated their results to make their case.First, we looked at the CRPs count of total super PAC donations.From 2010 to late February, about $215 million had been donated to super PACs, according to the CRP data. This is about $35 million -- or 20 percent -- more than the data published in Auctioning Democracy, but this difference did not signal major flaws.The CRPs number should be significantly higher than the figures in Auctioning Democracy. The report excludes donations of $200 or less as well as contributions for the 2012 calendar year. The CRP includes them.Next, we looked at whether roughly half of super PAC donations came from 200 super-rich people. The CRP publishes a list of the top 100 super PAC donors for the 2012 election cycle on its website. We found they donated about $74 million so far, or 57 percent of the cycles $130 million total.The count in Auctioning Democracy was lower, which suggests that Demos and U.S. PIRG did not overstate the significance of donations from the super-rich.We had difficulty using the CRPs data to check corporate or business donations. The CRPs Web page lists too few organizations, and does not distinguish between for-profit businesses and groups such as labor unions or advocacy organizations.Our rulingJohnson wrote that [i]n the last two years, super PACs raised more than $180 million -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people and roughly 20 percent from corporations.On balance, Johnsons claim reflects the findings of a report by two advocacy groups that are critical of super PACs. The statistics Johnson uses also make sense in light of data published by a separate group.We give Johnson a True. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who plans to say this spring if hell again seek the Republican presidential nomination, questioned the validity of federal unemployment statistics as he otherwise extolled the boom in his home state, according to a reporter in attendance. In a tweet, Dave Weigel of Bloomberg Politics quoted Perry saying during a Jan. 26, 2015, breakfast event with Jewish voters in Des Moines that the official unemployment rate is unreliable: Its been massaged, its been doctored, Weigel quoted Perry saying. By phone, Weigel told us Perry made his remark while celebrating his states economy and did not take reporter questions. At our request, Weigel later emailed us his fuller transcript showing Perry said: We've got the lowest participation rate since the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president. I'm talking about participation in the work force. That's of really great concern for me. Perry continued: I mean, who is it standing up for these people that I call the uncounted? They've lost hope that they can even get a job, so they're not even counted. When you look at the unemployment rate today, that's not the true unemployment rate, it's been massaged, it's been doctored, Perry said. The U.S. unemployment rate was 5.6 percentin December 2014, down from as much as 10 percent in 2009, Democrat Barack Obamas first year as president.The Texas jobless ratewas 4.6 percent, the states lowest since May 2008. Indeed, on Jan. 15, 2015, in his last speech to Texas legislators as governor, Perrysaluted the statesjob gains, also noting the Texas jobless rate was significantly below the national average. So we were curious what he meant about the rate being doctored and asked Perry aides to elaborate--without success. Jobless rate an imperfect indicator Nationally, the persistence of discouraged workers and declining workforce participation often come up as criticisms of the jobless rate. Perrys mention of the official jobless rate leaving out discouraged workers was accurate. After Obamas latest State of the Union address, PolitiFact rated Mostly True the Democratic leaders declaration the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been since before the financial crisis that blew up around the time of his 2008 election. Still, that fact check noted Obama was citing the most basic version of the unemployment rate,which draws on regular surveys of households that originated in 1940. Another version of the rate, known as U-6, tries to capture a broader picture of labor-market weaknesses by accounting for people who are unemployed plus people working part-time who would rather have full-time work -- and people who have stopped looking for work but would begin to look again if labor-market conditions improved. By rolling in these additional factors, the U-6 rate tends to track the official unemployment rate but is usually a few points higher. And as it happens, the U-6 rate -- unlike the official unemployment rate -- hasnt returned to its pre-financial-crisis level. The national December 2014 U-6 rate was 11.2 percent, higher than the 11 percent rate in September 2008. This gets us to Perrys mention of labor force participation, which gauges the number of people in the labor force compared to the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. The labor force shrinks whenever someone retires, voluntarily gives up working (such as when they become a full-time parent or go back to school full-time) or because they simply give up on finding a job. Historically, workforce participation was down in the national recession at the end of Carters tenure and through the start of Ronald Reagans presidency,PolitiFact noted in 2012. More recently, the labor force participation rate has markedly decreased since 2008. In September 2008, it stood at 66 percent; it was nearly 63 percent as of December 2014, the most recent month of available data. So, the participation rate is lately at its lowest point since the late 1970s, which also was a time when fewer women had jobs outside the home. This decrease has partly been influenced by the aging of the workforce (as in Baby Boomer retirements). No signs of doctoring These wrinkles noted, is there evidence the jobless rate has been massaged and doctored, as Perry put it? We found none. In November 2013, after a manipulation charge bubbled up involving the Philadelphia region, the U.S. Census Bureau -- which conducts the Current Population Survey that gathers information from households later converted by the government to the unemployment rate --posted a statementsaying: We have no reason to believe that there was a systematic manipulation of the data described in media reports. As a statistical agency, the Census Bureau is very conscientious about our responsibility to produce accurate Current Population Survey data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and all other surveys we conduct. The bureau referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Commerces Office of the Inspector General, whichsaid in May 2014 it had found no evidenceunemployment data had been manipulated in the months leading up to the November 2012 national election. That report also recommended some bureau reforms. None of several experts responding to our inquiries said the unemployment rate has been massaged or doctored. Among them,Andrew Biggsof the American Enterprise Institute told us the fact the regular jobless rate doesnt reflect discouraged job-seekers or part-timers wishing for full-time jobs isnt a deliberate government misrepresentation. Still, Biggs emailed, it means the unemployment rate doesnt deliver an accurate picture of the labor markets health. If labor force participation were the same today as prior to the recession, I believe the unemployment rate would be around 8.3%. So the idea that the labor market is really healthy today just isnt that true, he said. In 2013, economists told PolitiFact it would be extremely difficult to alter the unemployment rate. William Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, said its important to remember there are many measures of unemployment, including privately produced surveys. And they all agree, within the margins of error, Shobe said. The immediate conclusion that you can draw from that is that no rogue interviewer or group of rogue interviewers have managed to budge the unemployment far (or at all, mind you) from the value it would have had otherwise. Shobe added that any effort to fudge the national numbers would require the participation of interviewers across the country. Otherwise you would see only a localized move which would wash out as noise in the national stats, he said. Shobe, reached afresh for this story, said he was unaware of developments that would support the former governors claim. The whole idea that you could get a group of these statisticians to lie about these survey results theyre collecting and have that stick, thats just crazy, Shobe said.These are career civil servants. Their incentives are to get the best possible numbers. Shobe suggested we query University of Wisconsin economistMenzie Chinnwho told us by email that he considers such critiques of the rate to be specious; Chinn pointed us to his October 2012blog posttaking to task a similar statement by business executive Jack Welch. Asked to assess Perrys comment in full, Chinn said: Its true that had the labor force participation rate not declined, and we used the number of employed actually observed to calculate a rate, then mechanically the unemployment rate would have to be higher. Regardless, he said, its not so that government statisticians changed the procedure for calculations in order to change the reported unemployment number  which Chinn said is how he would define doctored. By phone,Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist, said nothing notable has occurred to demonstrate the unemployment rate has been doctored or massaged, though in August 2014, Princeton University economistAlan Kruegerand others wrotea paperpointing out fewer people are responding to the survey that feeds the rate. ANew York Timescolumnist, David Leonhardt,summarizedthe upshot as being a seeming increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work. Sinclair speculated by email that Perrys reference to discouraged workers being left out of the rate means hed prefer to see the rate calculated with the workers counted. But the words massaged and doctored, Sinclair said, each carries a charge, implying the rate is nefariously manipulated. We have no evidence of that, Sinclair said. Our ruling Addressing Iowans, Perry said the official U.S. jobless rate has been doctored, its been massaged. Theres legitimate debate about what statistic best measures the state of the workforce and even agreement that the widely quoted unemployment rate (which Perry stressed as meaningful about a week before this Iowa stop) doesnt provide the fullest picture of the labor force. But that's a far cry from showing the government is massaging or doctoring numbers, which implies organized underhanded wrongdoing. Perry may yet elaborate. We find this claim factually unsupported and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Map shows states in which employees can be "fired for being gay." PARTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2013] I saw a map of states where you can be fired for being gay. Is this true?  Origins:  The map displayed above identifies twenty-nine states (shown in red) where, according to the accompanying title, "you can be fired for being gay." This map is "true" in the broad sense that it identifies states which do not currently have statewide laws prohibiting all employers from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it is not the case that those states are all completely devoid protections against that form of discrimination.  Anti-discrimination laws typically address not just discrimination in the termination of employees but also in other job-related aspects, such as hiring, promotion, job assignment,  and compensation. In general, employees who work on an at-will basis may (with some narrow exceptions) be terminated without cause  at-will and without their employers incurring legal liability.  However, members of certain protected classes may not be discriminated against in employment for reasons related to the characteristics that make them members of those classes (e.g., sex, race, religion, national origin, age).   Since the U.S. has not yet enacted national regulations establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, most employees who have such protection are afforded it on the basis of state laws.  protected classes While the twenty-nine states shown in red above may currently lack statewide laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not true that all employers in all of those states may freely fire employees "for being gay."  Some of those red states have laws which protect public (i.e., government) employees from sexual orientation discrimination (but not those who work in the private sector), some of those states have laws passed at county or city levels which protect employees in those local areas from such discrimination, and some of those states protect public employees from employment discrimination through means other than laws (e.g., executive orders, administrative orders, personnel regulations).     Maps like the ones displayed below present more detailed representations (at both the statewide and local levels) of the status of laws banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in the United States:   Last updated:  10 April 2013 When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations  that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information:  America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed. Claim:  Publix is giving away $100 grocery coupons to Facebook users.  Origins:  In July 2015, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $100 in Free Groceries when you spend $120 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain.  These posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.  On 12 July 2015 Publix took to Facebook to warn customers that these coupon offers are not an authorized promotion and advise them not to visit sites promoting them: Facebook  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more"....Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.  This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards.These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts:Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's 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. There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more".... Posted by Publix on Sunday, July 12, 2015 Publix Sunday, July 12, 2015  There is a fraudulent Publix coupon circulating on social media that states "$100 off your purchase of $120 or more". This is not supported by Publix and this coupon is not valid at any of our locations. We recommend not participating in the promotion or providing your personal information. Thank you for your patience as we investigate this situation.   This coupon is a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network, there's a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's 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 there's 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 organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's 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. The 2015-16 academic year ended withpomp,circumstance-- and skirmishes between Gov.Scott Walkerand professors in the University of Wisconsin System. Walker, irked byno-confidence votesfaculty are taking against the systems leadership, fired attacks on University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors (including one we ratedPants on Fire). Several days later, on May 16, 2016, Walker kept up the offensive inan interviewon WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. We have some of the best schools in the country, no doubt about it, Walker told conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes. But weve got to stop feeding into this national perception that how much you pay in tuition suddenly is a correlation to what the value is. Yeah, you want to have a reasonable level of support for the system; and we do. In fact, by the way, Walker continued, the University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The amount of money they get from state government is only a fraction of what they have overall. So, for all this hysteria out there, they have never had more money to spend in the UW System. With the 2015-17 state budget, Walker and his fellow Republicans in the Legislaturecut $250 millionover the two years from the UW System. That was an 11 percent reduction in state support and a big reason for the no-confidence votes. So, we wondered about Walkers claim that UW Systems budget is the biggest its ever been. Hes essentially correct, but with some caveats. Walker was referring to the systems all-funds budget -- which, as the name suggests, is comprehensive. It includes state tax dollars, but also an array of other funds, such as tuition, revenue from enterprises such as dormitories and athletics, federal research dollars and gifts. We asked for budget figures from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau for the entire history of theUW System, which began in 1973-'74. Heres a look at the last six years, when the figures were highest. Year All-funds budget -- actual All-funds budget -- adjusted for inflation 2010-11 $5.591 billion $6.077 billion 2011-12 $5.589 billion $5.889 billion 2012-13 $5.901 billion $6.092 billion 2013-14 $5.997 billion $6.101 billion 2014-15 $6.098 billion $6.105 billion 2015-16 $6.194 billion* $6.059 billion As you might expect, the current all-funds budget (2015-16) is the largest on record. But with an asterisk. Thats because in 2015-16, for the first time, the UW System included unspent tuition money carried over from the previous year in its all-funds budget. If that money wasnt included, the 2015-16 all-funds budget would have been $6.059 billion -- the second-highest ever, behind 2014-15, rather than $6.194 billion. Adjusted for inflation -- a better measure for comparing figures over time -- the 2015-16 all funds budget is slightly smaller than in four of the five previous years, but still near the top. State support Walker made it clear his claim was about total funding for the UW System, and that state money covers only a portion of the systems budget. But its worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, state support of the system -- known as general purpose revenue -- is in a historic decline, according to figures from the fiscal bureau. The highest state support, adjusted for inflation, was in the first year of the system, 1973-74 -- at just under $1.52 billion. That figure hit an all-time low of $1.03 billion in 2015-16. UW System officials often cite the reduction in state support because they have generally have more flexibility in spending state tax dollars than with revenues that are designated for certain purposes. Our rating Walker said: The University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The systems 2015-16 all-funds budget -- which includes not only state tax dollars but federal funds, tuition and other income -- is $6.194 billion, the biggest since the system was created in 1973-74. But adjusted for inflation, the 2015-16 all-funds budget is among the biggest, though not the biggest. And the 2015-16 figure includes unspent tuition revenue that hadnt been counted in the all-funds budget in previous years. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. In February 2020, a text meme concerning Sen. Bernie Sanders' health care plan and his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour was circulated on social media. The meme contained several arithmetic equations that supposedly showed how the pay increase for minimum wage workers would be negated by the hike in taxes needed to pay for Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan:   Bernie Sanders said at the debate last night he wants minimum wage to be $15 an hour. 15$ x 40 hr work week = $600600$ x 52 weeks per year = $31,200 Bernie Sanders wants free healthcare for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was to raise taxes 52% on anyone making over $29,000 per year. 52% of $31,200 = $16,224 in tax$31,200 - $16,224 = $14,976 is your pay$14,976  52 weeks = $288 per week$288  40 hr week = $7.20 per hour But there's no need to check the arithmetic in this meme. The general claim here  that Sanders' health care plan would raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year  is egregiously false. In short, no. One proposal offered by Sanders would raise the tax rate to 52% on earnings over $10 million. Sanders also proposed that the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes, and a 4% income-based premium would be applied to earnings over $29,000. The meme asserts that Sanders made this claim "at the debate last night." As this meme started circulating in mid-February 2020, we'll assume that timing refers to the Democratic presidential debate held in Las Vegas on Feb. 17, 2020. Although Sanders did say that he wanted to raise the minimum wage to $15 during that debate, he did not say that he would pay for his health care plan by raising "taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 a year." Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg did maintain that "taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000" under Sanders' tax plan, but Buttigieg did not claim that the tax rate would increase to 52% for these individuals. Sanders disputed Buttigieg's claim during the debate, saying the latter was "not being honest" and that any tax increase for low-wage workers would be offset by lower health care costs. Here's an excerpt of the exchange between the two men (a full transcript of the debate is available here): here BUTTIGIEG: [Sanders] was a congressman at the time. And the qualities I admired then are qualities I still respect a great deal. I never said that I agree with every part of his policy views, then or now. But I appreciate that at least he's straightforward and honest about them. He's honest about the fact that taxes will go up on anybody making more than $29,000 to fund his health care plan, although, again, a little bit vague about how the rest of that gets ... SANDERS: You're not being honest. Premiums would be eliminated. BUTTIGIEG: But you're still raising those taxes. And when you do it... SANDERS: But we're saving people money because they don't pay any premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, co-payments, or deductibles. They're going to be much better off. [applause] BUTTIGIEG: But where is  where is the other $25 trillion supposed to come from? At a certain point, you've got to do the math. SANDERS: Well, we got it all up there on the internet. It's a payroll tax  a payroll tax... [crosstalk] BUTTIGIEG: Well, no, but even after the payroll tax, you still have a hole. [crosstalk] SANDERS: Because we have a wealth tax. Elizabeth [Warren] has a good one. Ours is a little bit tougher on Mr. Bloomberg than hers. We're going to raise it in a progressive way, which deals with income and wealth inequality, and makes certain, finally, that health care in this country is a human right, not a privilege. Although Sanders did not reference it during that debate, we did find mention of a 52% tax rate on a document he released to explain various "options to finance Medicare for All." That document stated that the 52% tax rate would be applied to earnings over $10 million, not $29,000 as claimed in the meme. Here's the relevant excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): document Another option is to reform the personal income tax system by strengthening progressive income tax rates, taxing capital gains and dividends the same as work income, limiting deductions for the wealthy, taxing carried interest as ordinary income, and requiring derivatives to be marked to market. Progressive income tax rates. Under this plan the marginal income tax rate would be: Sanders mentioned the $29,000 figure in another document entitled "Financing Medicare for All." This documented listed a few additional ways to pay for Medicare for All, including a 4% income-based premium on incomes over $29,000. Here's an excerpt from that document (emphasis ours): Financing Medicare for All As the wealthiest country in the world, we have a variety of options available to support a Medicare for All, single-payer health care system that guarantees high quality, affordable health care as a right, not a privilege, to every man, woman, and child in this country. Those options include, but are not limited to: Sanders elaborated on this portion of his plan during a September 2019 appearance on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert": September 2019  Sanders made a similar statement during a town hall in New Hampshire in November 2019. Sanders again said that the first $29,000 of an individual's earnings would be exempt from taxes and then a 4% tax rate would apply on earnings over $29,000: town hall What we will do  what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," Sanders told his supporters. "All right, good. You  youre better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means were going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent. We were unable to find any instance of Sanders' proposing a 52% tax rate on "anybody making over $29,000" per year, something that appears to be an erroneous conflation of Sanders' proposing a 4% tax rate on earnings over $29,000 and a 52% tax rate on earnings over $10 million. A counter-meme offered a more accurate (although still not entirely accurate) look at Sanders' actual expressed plans:  This meme, too, makes a mistake. Sanders' tax proposal uses a marginal tax rate (or a progressive tax rate), which means that a different tax rate is applied to different portions of a person's income. The percentage taxed starts relatively small, but grows as income increases. In Sanders' case, the first $29,000 of a person's income would be exempt from taxes. When a person's income crosses the $29,000 threshold, a 4% tax will be applied to earnings OVER$29,000. This tax rate continues to grow as income increases. Income over $10 million, for instance, would be taxed at 52%. But the above-displayed meme applies a 4% tax rate to ALL $31,200. Under Sanders' plan, however, the first $29,000 would be exempt and the 4% tax rate would only apply to the remaining $2,200. We reached out to Sanders' campaign for comment on the claim that the candidate was planning to raise the tax rate to 52% on everyone making over $29,000 per year. A spokesperson told us "the meme is false."  Kangadis, Nick.  "Bernie Sanders Says Tax Hike on Lower, Middle Classes Will Pay for Medicare for All Plan."
  MRCTV.  26 November 2019. Frazin, Rachel.  "Colbert Questions Sanders on Middle-Class Tax Hike After Pressing Warren on the Same Topic."
  The Hill.  27 September 2019. NBC News.  "Full Transcript: Ninth Democratic Debate in Las Vegas."
  19 February 2020. Updated [24 February 2020]: Added information to clarify the marginal tax rate structure and correct an inaccurate portion of a secondary meme. Turmeric, which has been the subject of thousands of studies and perhaps even more memes, came up again recently when an image circulated claiming that the spice prevents dementia, and that because of its curative powers, India has the lowest rate of dementia in the world.    The meme, like a lot of claims about turmeric's curative properties, relies on a large body of research that scientists have recently called into question. Most turmeric studies have focused on curcumin, which appears in high concentrations in the root, and other similar chemicals called curcuminoids. Many of these curcumin studies employ a laboratory technique called High Throughput Screening (HTS) that allows researchers to test how curcumin responds to chemicals representing different bodily functions. High Throughput Screening These types of studies have suggested that curcumin can treat conditions ranging from diabetes to HIV. One study summed up the findings in this astonishing list:  summed Curcumin has been reported to have activity for the following indications: anti-inflammatory, anti-HIV, antibacterial, antifungal, nematocidal, antiparasitic, antimutagenic, antidiabetic, antifibrinogenic, radioprotective, wound healing, lipid lowering, antispasmodic, antioxidant, immunomodulating, anticarcinogenic, and Alzheimers disease, among others. An expansive 2017 review of curcumin and curcmuninoid research, however, argued that curcumin's chemical properties make it impossible to study using HTS and too biologically unstable to treat anything.  2017 review Curcumin is part of a group of chemicals called pan-assay interference compounds (or PAINS) that are known to trigger false positives in HTS studies.  PAINS Even if false positives weren't a problem, curcumin and curcuminoids are both unstable and not very potent in the human body, making them unlikely to be effective as a treatment.  Speaking to the Washington Post, Kathryn M. Nelson, a principal scientist at the University of Minnesotas Institute for Therapeutics Discovery and Development and the author of the 2017 review of curcumin explained: Speaking Curcumins bioavailability  the amount that makes its way throughout the body  is dismal, Nelson says. The chemical is fragile, and once its ingested, its quickly excreted. The compound itself is probably not doing anything, she adds. It falls apart in water. Think about how well its going to survive your stomach and its acids. For these and other reasons, research on the benefits of turmeric and curcumin remain far from settled, despite the large amount of literature on the topic. Does India Actually Have The Lowest Rage of Dementia in the World? Web sites promoting the use of turmeric often claim that India, a country with relatively high turmeric consumption, has the lowest rate of dementia in the world. But the research on dementia rates in India is so limited that it makes using the country as proof of turmerics efficacy problematic, if not scientifically dishonest. claim The claim originated with a 2001 epidemiology study that suggested one rural Indian village boasted the lowest rates of Alzheimer's (the most common dementia subtype) in the world. This finding, however, came with heavy caveats: 2001 epidemiology study common These are the first AD [Alzheimer's disease] incidence rates to be reported from the Indian subcontinent, and they appear to be among the lowest ever reported. However, the relatively short duration of follow-up, cultural factors, and other potential confounders suggest caution in interpreting this finding. Later studies on dementia rates in India were hindered by the similar problems. similar problems A 2006 study in the journal The Lancet suggested that the existing epidemiological data was insufficient to estimate the actual prevalence of dementia in India, in part due to under-diagnosis and a lack of awareness about the disease in rural communities. Based in part on an increasing awareness of the condition in rural parts of India, scientists predict dementia rates to grow by 300% in the coming years, among the fastest in the world. A 2008 paper further supported the notion that economic factors can contribute to an underestimate of the incidence of dementia in lower-income countries like India. insufficient predict 2008 paper Relying on disease rates in populations that consume a lot of turmeric as evidence for its efficacy is also problematic without data on other dietary factors and genetic differences, as a 2017 review suggested: 2017 review Even the authors of the oft-cited study cautioned against overinterpretation of their results given the relatively short duration of the study, the small number of incident cases, and the wide confidence intervals. Diet was not considered as part of the study, and the frequency of the APOE4 allele [gene], a risk factor for AD, was noted as being lower in the [Indian] group as compared to the [American] group. How Would Turmeric Treat Dementia?  Setting aside for a moment the problems with calculating the rate of dementia in India and the problems with HTS studies of curcumin, how would curcumin cure dementia? There are two main theories. The first relies on its (contested) anti-inflammatory properties: relies contested Research to date suggests that chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and most chronic diseases are closely linked, and the antioxidant properties of curcumin can play a key role in the prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. Another, related, hypothesis suggests that curcumin could stimulate the immune system to more efficiently remove the buildup in the brain of chemicals that produce amyloid plaques, which are thought to contribute to dementia. Some studies suggest that when you have Alzheimer's, your white blood cells can't efficiently consume and destroy these chemicals. Some research in animals and in laboratory settings hinted that curcumin could stimulate the immune system to do so. consume research However, there have been no controlled, double-blind, clinical trials on humans that support this claim outside of the lab. In terms of clinical research on humans, a 2012 phase II, 24-week, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial of curcumin on 36 individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimers indicated a lack of efficacy: 2012 lack After 24 weeks of treatment, there was no observed difference in mental status between the placebo and treated groups based on several measurements of cognitive status. "To our knowledge, [curcumin] has never been shown to be conclusively effective in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial for any indication," Nelson and her colleagues wrote in their 2017 review. wrote Bollinger, Ty.  "Key Health Benefit of Turmeric: Improved Brain Health."
  The Truth about Cancer.  6 September 2016. Neslon, Kathryn, M., et al.  "The Essential Medicinal Chemistry of Curcumin."
  Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.  11 January 2017. Baell, Jonathan B., and Holloway, Georgina, A.  "New Substructure Filters for Removal of Pan Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS) from Screening Libraries and for Their Exclusion in Bioassays."
  Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.  4 February 2010. NIH National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health.  "Turmeric."
  Accessed 5 December 2017. Blackemore, Erin.  "New Substructure Filters for Removal of Pan Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS) from Screening Libraries and for Their Exclusion in Bioassays."
  Washington Post.  20 August 2017. Burns, Alistair.  Dementia."
  BMJ.  5 February 2017. He, Yan, et al.  Curcumin, Inflammation, and Chronic Diseases: How Are
They Linked?"
  Molecules.  20 May 2015. Zhang, L., et al.  Curcuminoids Enhance Amyloid-beta Uptake by Macrophages of Alzheimer's Disease Patients."
  Journal of Alzheimers Research.  September 2006. Chandra, V., et al.  Incidence of Alzheimers Disease in a Rural Community In India:
The IndoUS Study."
  Neurology.  25 September 2001. Ferri, Cleusa, P., et al.  Global Prevalence of Dementia: A Delphi Consensus Study"
  The Lancet.  4 April 2006. Rodriguez, Juan J., et al.  Prevalence of Dementia in Latin America, India, and China: a Population-based Cross-sectional Survey."
  The Lancet.  4 April 2006.