Never pass up a chance to sit down or relieve yourself. -old Apache saying

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

USAFacts

USAFacts is the brainchild of Steve Ballmer, former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the Los Angeles Clippers (an NBA team). It's an interesting place to go for "real" figures involving our government. Will the "right" accept Ballmer's data? They should. But will they? Who knows? They are probably busy developing their own "AlternativeFacts."

Here's s a short blurb on Wikipedia, which you should be supporting, BTW.


USAFacts is a not-for-profit organization and website that provides data and reports on the United States population, its government's finances, and government's impact on society.[1][2] It was launched in 2017.[3]

USAFacts was founded by former Microsoft CEO and owner of the Los Angeles Clippers,[4] Steve Ballmer.[5][6] Ballmer invested his own money in the project.[7] USAFacts was launched on April 18, 2017, Tax Day, with the goal of making government data about tax revenues, expenditures, and outcomes more accessible and understandable. USAFacts's platform is designed to provide information to the public about government spending and impact at all levels, from federal to local.[8][9][10] It includes information about border apprehensions, climate, immigration, active shooters, medicare, education, military spending and opioids.[4] It also helps entrepreneurs to figure out the best location to launch or invest in businesses.[7][non-primary source needed]

At launch, the website gathered data from over 70 government agencies and pulls data from more than 130 US government statistical databases and reports.[11][non-primary source needed] Only official government data is included in the site.[12][13][5]

How much does the government spend, really? 

The government's spending depends on the revenue it collects through taxes, customs duties, and other sources. Of course, it often spends more money than it brings in. When this happens, the government borrows funds, contributing to the national debt. 
  • In FY 2023 (October 1, 2022, to September 30, 2023), the federal government spent about $6.2 trillion, or about $18,400 per person. This was down 8.5% from the previous fiscal year but up 15.9% from FY 2019. 
Pie chart of federal spending
  • In FY 2023, about 58% of federal spending went to three major spending priorities: Social Security ($1.4 trillion), defense ($1.1 trillion), and transfers to state and local governments (also $1.1 trillion).  

  • Medicare accounted for 14% while interest on the debt accounted for another 11%. Meanwhile, 18% went to a large grouping of “other” programs, ranging from $31 billion for Pell Grants to $124 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (often called “food stamps”) and $17 billion on technology infrastructure. 

  • From 1980 to 2023, federal spending grew 2.8 times while the US population grew about 1.5 times. The takeaway? The federal government is spending more per person than it did years ago.  

The least efficient government programs 

Thirty-seven government spending priorities are considered highly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, according to the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO provides this information in an effort to help save taxpayers money. Here’s an overview of the GAO’s process and what’s on its watchlist. 
  • Since 1990, the GAO has produced a list of federal programs at high risk for financial issues and in need of reform. These issues can, among other things, threaten the nation's public health or safety, national security, and economic growth. The GAO might also include programs at risk of losing at least $1 billion.  
Number of programs on the GAO's high-risk list annually
  • This year’s list of 37 programs included improving and modernizing federal disability programs, NASA’s acquisition management, Health and Human Services’ leadership
    of public health emergencies, and contract management at the Defense Department.
     
  • The GAO highlighted five areas in particular need of attention:  
    • National cybersecurity 
    • Government responses to drug abuse 
    • Federal food safety oversight 
    • Government liability for environmental cleanup 
    • Managing fiscal risks associated with climate change 

  • The list included 14 high-risk programs in 1990. The GAO has added 53 programs since then and removed 29 after they demonstrated adequate improvement. 

  • According to the GAO, Congressional and agency actions addressing high-risk areas saved the government an estimated $100 billion between 2021 and 2023. 

Data behind the news

Authorities are saying that the firearm used to kill UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson was a ghost gun, meaning it was made privately and lacks the serial numbers typically used to trace firearms. The number of ghost guns sent to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has more than tripled since 2019. 
 
A rebel group assumed control of the Syrian government. Civil war has raged across the country for more than 13 years. From 2011 to 2023, Syria ranked sixth highest for refugees coming to the United States. 
 
See how much you know about government data with the weekly fact quiz.  

One last fact

What cities have the highest inflation rate?
In October, New York City had the nation’s highest inflation rate at 4.0%, followed by Chicago (3.5%) and Baltimore (3.4%).  
 
Phoenix had the lowest rate, at 1.6%, followed by Atlanta (1.9%) and Houston (2.1%).  
 
New inflation data just came out last week. Click here to see how the cities included in the new Consumer Price Index report are faring now.  


Sunday, December 15, 2024

Paul Krugman

Krugman is leaving the New York Times after some 23+ years there. But he will be around somewhere. 


My Last Column: Finding Hope in an Age of Resentment

by Paul Krugman
Dec 9, 2024


This is my final column for The New York Times, where I began publishing my opinions in January 2000. I’m retiring from The Times, not the world, so I’ll still be expressing my views in other places. But this does seem like a good occasion to reflect on what has changed over these past 25 years.

What strikes me, looking back, is how optimistic many people, both here and in much of the Western world, were back then and the extent to which that optimism has been replaced by anger and resentment. And I’m not just talking about members of the working class who feel betrayed by elites; some of the angriest, most resentful people in America right now — people who seem very likely to have a lot of influence with the incoming Trump administration — are billionaires who don’t feel sufficiently admired.

It’s hard to convey just how good most Americans were feeling in 1999 and early 2000. Polls showed a level of satisfaction with the direction of the country that looks surreal by today’s standards. My sense of what happened in the 2000 election was that many Americans took peace and prosperity for granted, so they voted for the guy who seemed as if he’d be more fun to hang out with.

In Europe, too, things seemed to be going well. In particular, the introduction of the euro in 1999 was widely hailed as a step toward closer political as well as economic integration — toward a United States of Europe, if you like. Some of us ugly Americans had misgivings, but initially they weren’t widely shared.


Of course, it wasn’t all puppies and rainbows. There was, for example, already a fair bit of proto-QAnon-type conspiracy theorizing and even instances of domestic terrorism in America during the Clinton years. There were financial crises in Asia, which some of us saw as a potential harbinger of things to come; I published a 1999 book titled “The Return of Depression Economics,” arguing that similar things could happen here; I put out a revised edition a decade later, when they did.

Still, people were feeling pretty good about the future when I began writing for this paper.

Why did this optimism curdle? As I see it, we’ve had a collapse of trust in elites: The public no longer has faith that the people running things know what they’re doing, or that we can assume that they’re being honest.

It was not always thus. Back in 2002 and ’03, those of us who argued that the case for invading Iraq was fundamentally fraudulent received a lot of pushback from people refusing to believe that an American president would do such a thing. Who would say that now?

In a different way, the financial crisis of 2008 undermined any faith the public had that governments knew how to manage economies. The euro as a currency survived the European crisis that peaked in 2012, which sent unemployment in some countries to Great Depression levels, but trust in Eurocrats — and belief in a bright European future — didn’t.

It’s not just governments that have lost the public’s trust. It’s astonishing to look back and see how much more favorably banks were viewed before the financial crisis.


And it wasn’t that long ago that technology billionaires were widely admired across the political spectrum, some achieving folk-hero status. But now they and some of their products face disillusionment and worse; Australia has even banned social media use by children under 16.

Which brings me back to my point that some of the most resentful people in America right now seem to be angry billionaires.

We’ve seen this before. After the 2008 financial crisis, which was widely (and correctly) attributed in part to financial wheeling and dealing, you might have expected the erstwhile Masters of the Universe to show a bit of contrition, maybe even gratitude at having been bailed out. What we got instead was “Obama rage,” fury at the 44th president for even suggesting that Wall Street might have been partly to blame for the disaster.

These days there has been a lot of discussion of the hard right turn of some tech billionaires, from Elon Musk on down. I’d argue that we shouldn’t overthink it, and we especially shouldn’t try to say that this is somehow the fault of politically correct liberals. Basically it comes down to the pettiness of plutocrats who used to bask in public approval and are now discovering that all the money in the world can’t buy you love.

So is there a way out of the grim place we’re in? What I believe is that while resentment can put bad people in power, in the long run it can’t keep them there. At some point the public will realize that most politicians railing against elites actually are elites in every sense that matters and start to hold them accountable for their failure to deliver on their promises. And at that point the public may be willing to listen to people who don’t try to argue from authority, don’t make false promises, but do try to tell the truth as best they can.


We may never recover the kind of faith in our leaders — belief that people in power generally tell the truth and know what they’re doing — that we used to have. Nor should we. But if we stand up to the kakistocracy — rule by the worst — that’s emerging as we speak, we may eventually find our way back to a better world.


Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman


Original.


Friday, December 13, 2024

Jensen Huang

This is yet another example of how the wealthy get all kinds of breaks that the regular person will never get. It's another sickening story, to follow that last sickening story about sexual abuse I posted. You know, they say that America is the greatest country in the world, despite having a few "warts." Well, America has warts alright, in spades. America has so many warts, it's starting to look like one gigantic wart on the face of humanity. Whenever I read a story like this, the faint echo returns...."USA! USA! USA!" and it makes me nauseous.

How One of the World's Richest Men Is Avoiding $8 Billion in Taxes

The chief executive of Nvidia, Jensen Huang, has taken advantage of popular loopholes in the federal estate and gift taxes, which have quietly been eviscerated.

by Jesse Drucker
December 5, 2024

Jensen Huang, the chief executive of Nvidia, is the 10th-richest person in the United States, worth $127 billion. In theory, when he dies, his estate should pay 40 percent of his net worth to the government in taxes.

But Mr. Huang, 61, is not only an engineering genius and Silicon Valley icon whose company, the world’s second-most valuable, makes the chips that power much artificial intelligence. He is also the beneficiary of a series of tax dodges that will enable him to pass on much of his fortune tax free, according to securities and tax filings reviewed by The New York Times.

The savings for his family are on a pace to be roughly $8 billion. It likely ranks among the largest tax dodges in the United States.

The types of strategies Mr. Huang has deployed to shield his wealth have become ubiquitous among the ultrawealthy. Blackstone Group’s Stephen A. Schwarzman, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and top executives at Google, Coinbase, Eli Lilly, Mastercard and Advanced Micro Devices have collectively shifted billions of dollars into financial vehicles in order to avoid the federal estate tax, according to a Times analysis of securities disclosures.


It is just one sign of how the estate tax — imposed solely on a sliver of the country’s multimillionaires — has been eviscerated.

Revenue from the tax has barely changed since 2000, even as the wealth of the richest Americans has roughly quadrupled. If the estate tax had simply kept pace, it would have raised around $120 billion last year. Instead it brought in about a quarter of that.


That missing revenue would be enough to simultaneously double the budget of the Justice Department and triple federal funding for cancer and Alzheimer’s research.

The story of Mr. Huang’s tax avoidance is a case study in how the ultrarich bend the U.S. tax system for their benefit. His strategies were not explicitly authorized by Congress. Instead, they were cooked up by creative lawyers who have exploited a combination of obscure federal regulationsnarrow findings by courts and rulingsthat the Internal Revenue Service issues in individual cases that then served as models for future tax shelters. As such strategies became widespread, they effectively became the law.


“You have an army of well-trained, brilliant people who sit there all day long, charging $1,000 an hour, thinking up ways to beat this tax,” said Jack Bogdanski, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School and the author of a widely cited treatise on the estate tax. “Don’t expect anyone in Congress to stop this.”

The richest Americans are able to pass down approximately $200 billion each year without paying estate tax on it, thanks to the use of complex trusts and other avoidance strategies, estimated Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at New York University.

Enforcement of the rules governing the estate tax has eased in part because the I.R.S. has been decimated by years of budget cuts. In the early 1990s, the agency audited more than 20 percent of all estate tax returns. By 2020, the rate had fallen to about 3 percent.


(See Original for a chart here that I could not paste.)


The trend is likely to accelerate with Republicans controlling both the White House and Capitol Hill. They are already slashing funding for law enforcement by the I.R.S. The incoming Senate majority leader, John Thune, and other congressional Republicans for years have been trying to kill the estate tax, branding it as a penalty on family farms and small businesses.


Yet Mr. Huang’s multibillion-dollar maneuver — detailed in the fine print of his filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and his foundation’s disclosures to the I.R.S. — shows the extent to which the estate tax has already been hollowed out.

“From an estate-tax-planning perspective, it’s a grand slam,” said Jonathan Blattmachr, a prominent trusts and estates lawyer who reviewed Mr. Huang’s disclosures for The Times. “He’s done a magnificent job.”

An Nvidia spokeswoman, Stephanie Matthew, declined to discuss details of the Huangs’ tax strategies.


Going back millenniums, governments have sought to slow the buildup of dynastic wealth. Augustus Caesar in ancient Rome taxed wealth at death. Adam Smith, the intellectual father of laissez-faire capitalism, attacked inherited fortunes. During the last Gilded Age, so did some of America’s wealthiest men. “By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire’s unworthy life,” Andrew Carnegie said.


The United States adopted the modern estate tax in 1916. In recent decades, congressional Republicans have successfully watered it down, cutting the rate and increasing the amount that is exemptfrom the tax. Today, a married couple can pass on about $27 milliontax free; anything more than that is generally supposed to be taxed at a 40 percent rate.

Billionaires have made a sport out of trying to avoid the tax. Gary Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs executive who was President-elect Donald J. Trump’s chief economic adviser during his first administration, once quipped that “only morons pay the estate tax.”

Mr. Huang is no moron. In 1993, he and two other engineers were eating in a booth at a Denny’s in San Jose, Calif., when they came up with the idea for a powerful new computer chip that would be the basis for Nvidia. The company was initially focused on making chips for 3-D graphics, but by the 2000s it was branching into other areas, such as supplying semiconductors for Tesla’s electric vehicles.


(See Original for chart inserted here.)


In 2012, Mr. Huang and his wife, Lori, took one of their first steps to shield their fortune from the estate tax.


They set up a financial vehicle known as an irrevocable trust and moved 584,000 Nvidia shares into it, according to a securities disclosure that Mr. Huang filed. The shares at the time were worth about $7 million, but they would eventually generate tax savings many times greater.

The Huangs were taking advantage of a precedent set nearly two decades earlier, in 1995, when the I.R.S. blessed a transaction that tax professionals affectionately nicknamed “I Dig It.” (The moniker was a play on the name of the type of financial vehicle involved: an intentionally defective grantor trust.)

One of the beauties of I Dig It was that it had the potential to largely circumvent not only the estate tax but also the federal gift tax. That tax applies to assets that multimillionaires give to their heirs while they’re alive and essentially serves as a backstop to the estate tax; otherwise, rich people could give away all their money before they die in order to avoid the estate tax.

Here’s how the I Dig It arrangement worked. Say that a hypothetical tycoon, John Doe, gave $10 million in cash to a trust for the benefit of his children. He wouldn’t have to pay gift taxes on that unless he had already hit the $27 million gift-tax exemption.

The trust could then use a combination of the $10 million and a loanfrom Mr. Doe to acquire $100 million of shares. Those shares wouldn’t be subject to the estate tax, thanks to the I.R.S.’s 1995 ruling.


There was an additional benefit. Say that the value of the shares in the trust soared tenfold. None of that would be subject to the estate tax. But it could trigger a $214 million capital gains tax bill — the $900 million gain taxed at 23.8 percent. Under a separate I.R.S. ruling, Mr. Doe could pay that tax on the trust’s behalf, without it counting as an additional gift to his heirs.

Otherwise, the trust would have to pay the capital gains tax bill, leaving a smaller fortune to future generations.

The I Dig It maneuver was enormously complicated — and enormously lucrative.

“I’ve always called it the gift that keeps on giving,” said Michael D. Mulligan, a veteran trusts and estates lawyer in St. Louis who helped create the strategy.

A parade of the ultrawealthy soon deployed variations of the technique, according to filings in court and with securities regulators.

The family of the media mogul Mel Karmazin used several I Dig Its. A former owner of the Detroit Pistons, Bill Davidson, used them to avoid more than $2.7 billion in taxes. Mitt Romney, who at the time was running the private equity firm Bain Capital and would later propose abolishing the estate tax as the Republican nominee for president in 2012, also used the technique.


The I.R.S. has challenged some setups that it viewed as overly aggressive. Mr. Davidson settled with the I.R.S. The agency claimed that the Karmazin family’s arrangements “lacked economic substance” and sought $2.4 million in back taxes. But the agency ultimately abandoned most of its arguments and collected about $100,000, according to a lawyer for the Karmazin family.

In Mr. Huang’s case, the details in securities filings are limited. But multiple experts, including Mr. Mulligan, said it was almost certainly a classic I Dig It gift, loan and sale transaction.

The $7 million of shares that Mr. Huang moved into his trust in 2012 are today worth more than $3 billion. If those shares were directly passed on to Mr. Huang’s heirs, they would be taxed at 40 percent — or well over $1 billion.

Instead, the tax bill will probably be no more than a few hundred thousand dollars.


The Huangs soon took another big step toward reducing their estate-tax bill.

Nvidia was emerging as the main provider of chips for artificial intelligence technology, eventually capturing more than 90 percentof the market. Mr. Huang was becoming a Silicon Valley celebrity. He adopted an all-black dress code. Such was his renown that he was known in tech circles simply by his first name, along with luminaries like Tesla’s Elon, Meta’s Mark and Google’s Sergey and Larry.


In 2016, the Huangs set up several vehicles known as grantor retained annuity trusts, or GRATs, securities filings show.

They were borrowing a strategy that had been invented years earlier on behalf of the ex-wife of Walmart’s co-founder. Beginning in 1993, Audrey Walton transferred about $200 million worth of shares to two GRATs. The twist was that the trusts had to eventually repay Ms. Walton the value of those shares, plus some modest interest. If the value of the shares went up more than what had to be repaid, the trusts could keep whatever was left over — tax free.

The I.R.S. contested the arrangement on narrow technical grounds. But in 2000, a U.S. Tax Court judge upheld its legality.

Mr. Hemel of New York University said the I.R.S. could have challenged the use of GRATs on other grounds as well. Instead, he said, the agency “capitulated” and essentially permitted the use of the trusts as an acceptable avenue for avoiding the estate tax.

Billionaires took notice. The Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the oil investor Harold Hamm, the cable magnates John Malone and Charles Dolan, and the designer Ralph Lauren were among those who set up GRATs soon after the Walton decision, according to disclosures in the men’s filings with the S.E.C. That positioned their families to collectively avoid billions of dollars in future tax bills.


Under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department repeatedly tried to make it harder to avoid the estate tax, proposing restrictions on the use of GRATs and I Dig Its. But the proposals died in Congress. (In the Trump administration, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, himself a GRAT user, would halt efforts to close the loopholes.)

In 2016, Mr. Huang and his wife put just over three million Nvidia shares into their four new GRATs. The shares were worth about $100 million. If their value rose, the increase would be a tax-free windfall for their two adult children, who both work at Nvidia.

That is precisely what happened. The shares are now worth more than $15 billion, according to data from securities filings compiled for The Times by Equilar, a data firm. That means that the Huang family is poised to avoid roughly $6 billion in estate taxes.

If the Huangs’ trusts sell their shares, that will generate a hefty capital gains tax bill — more than $4 billion, based on Nvidia’s current stock price. Mr. and Mrs. Huang can pay that bill on behalf of the trusts, without it counting as a taxable gift to their heirs.


Starting in 2007, Mr. Huang deployed another technique that will further reduce his family’s estate taxes. This strategy involved taking advantage of his and his wife’s charitable foundation.


Mr. Huang has given the Jen Hsun & Lori Huang Foundation shares of Nvidia that were worth about $330 million at the time of the donations. Such donations are tax-deductible, meaning they reduced the Huangs’ income tax bills in the years that the gifts took place.

Foundations are required to make annual donations to charities equal to at least 5 percent of their total assets. But the Huangs’ foundation, like those of many billionaires, is satisfying that requirement by giving heavily to what is known as a donor-advised fund.

Such funds are pools of money that the donor controls. There are limitations on how the money can be spent. Buying cars or vacation homes or the like is off limits. But a fund could, say, investmoney in a business run by the donor’s friend or donate enough money to name a building at a university that the donor’s children hope to attend.

There is a gaping loophole in the tax laws: Donor-advised funds are not required to actually give any money to charitable organizations.


When the donor dies, control of the fund can pass to his heirs — without incurring any estate taxes.

In recent years, 84 percent of the Huang foundation’s donations have gone to their donor-advised fund, named GeForce, an apparent nod to the name of an Nvidia videogame chip. The Nvidia shares that the Huangs have donated are today worth about $2 billion.

The fund is not required to disclose how its money is spent, though the foundation has said the assets will be used for charitable purposes. The Nvidia spokeswoman, Ms. Matthew, said those causes included higher education and public health.

But there is another benefit. Based on Nvidia’s current stock price, the donations to the fund have reduced Mr. Huang’s eventual estate-tax bill by about $800 million.


Kitty Bennett and Dylan Freedman contributed research.

Jesse Drucker is an investigative reporter for the Business section and has written extensively on the world of high end tax avoidance. More about Jesse Drucker


Original.