Categories
Breaking New

Arizona Voters Approve Tax On Wealthy To Fund Public Schools


Arizonans voted to boost taxes on high earners in order to steer more money to public schools, marking a major win for the Red for Ed movement that began with a wave of teacher strikes in several states two years ago.

Proposition 208, dubbed Invest in Ed, will go into effect next year to fund salaries and training programs for teachers and support staff at public schools and public charters.

The Associated Press called the race late Thursday, with “yes” votes leading “no” 52% to 48%.

The additional 3.5% tax on income will apply to earnings above $250,000 for single filers and $500,000 for joint filers. It would be added to Arizona’s current top tax rate of 4.54%.

Backers of the measure estimate it will put an additional $940 million annually into the state’s public K-12 school system.

Arizona teachers were part of the historic series of strikes that hit public schools around the country, starting in early 2018. The educators were protesting years of disinvestment in public schools that led to staff shortages and underfunded classrooms. Even though the strikes temporarily shut down schools, the public by and large supported teachers’ efforts to boost funding for the education system.

The results of Tuesday’s vote show Arizonans still like the idea of pumping more money into schools even if it means higher taxes for some residents. Polling ahead of the vote showed broad public support for the proposal crossing party lines, with two-thirds of respondents saying they approved of the tax. But the result ended up much closer.



Public school teacher Taylor Dutro participates in a protest in May 2018. A ballot measure passed in this week’s election by Arizona voters was an outgrowth of the teacher strikes there and in other states that began two years ago.

Teachers and their unions pushed for a tax increase on high earners in 2018, but the Arizona Supreme Court ordered that the initiative be removed from that year’s ballot due to the language used in the petition. This year’s ballot initiative did not run into the same problem.

Teacher unions helped fund the Arizona initiative, saying school districts pay staff too little to attract and retain talent. The average teacher salary in Arizona was $50,353 during the 2018-19 school year, giving it a rank of 43 out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country.

Under Prop. 208, half the money raised would go toward salaries for classroom staff, a quarter toward salaries for school support staff, and the rest toward retention and training programs. According to The Arizona Daily Star, only around 90,000 Arizona residents earn enough money to be hit by the tax surcharge.

The ballot measure drew opposition from state Republican leaders including Gov. Doug Ducey, who said it would hurt small business owners whose earnings top the $250,000 mark.

Business lobbies lined up in opposition to the proposal as well, with the state Chamber of Commerce pouring more than $8 million to fight it in the final stretch. But initiative supporters still outspent the opposition by a healthy margin, according to Ballotpedia.





Source link

Categories
Politics

Joe Biden’s Tax Plan Will Put The Middle Class In Peril (VIDEO)


Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone was on the FOX Business Network this week to discuss the election, specifically Joe Biden’s tax plan.

Biden keeps claiming he is only going to tax the rich, in an obvious effort to appeal to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat party, but the truth is that his plan will impact the middle class negatively.

Langone explained how.

From FOX Business:

TRENDING: Mysterious “Donald Trump Watch” Website — With Offices in China — Reveals Addresses of Local Trump Donors for Antifa and BLM Terrorist Targeting

Joe Biden’s tax plan will put middle class in ‘peril,’ Home Depot’s Langone says

Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone blasted Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s tax plan on Wednesday, saying that “the middle class will be in peril.”

Langone told “Mornings with Maria” on Wednesday that the middle class will feel the effects of Biden’s tax plan even though the former vice president has said the wealthy should pay more in taxes, and that the tax code should be more progressive and equitable. That includes eliminating loopholes that favor the rich and large corporations.

“I don’t know if there’s any of us that have done well that will have a problem with paying more taxes, but it’s a ruse to think that hitting us and us alone is going to get the job done,” Langone said.

“It won’t and the middle class will be in peril and when you take money out of the hands of the middle class, you do a dramatic impact negatively on the economy.”

“The middle class will not be exempt,” he added. “Tragically, it will punish them. It isn’t going to punish us.”

Watch the video below:

Langone makes some excellent points here but one really stands out.

Why would you raise any taxes when we’re still trying to recover from the hit the economy took under the pandemic?

We should be looking at tax cuts, not increases.

(Image:Source)

Cross posted from American Lookout.





Source link

Categories
Politics

GM ordered to repay $28 million in tax breaks for closing auto plant


On Monday, the Ohio Tax Credit Authority said GM must pay back roughly half of those tax benefits, as well as provide an additional $12 million in community support in the Mahoning Valley, the economically depressed region where the plant was located. The funds are targeted for education and job training at Youngstown State University and other colleges, community programs and infrastructure projects. […]

Although the clawback falls short of the total $60.3 million that GM received, the state’s action is significant, said Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit agency that tracks corporate subsidies and violations.

“The $28 million still stands as the biggest clawback we can point to” nationwide, he said. Yet he believes that the state should have pursued a total refund. “It’s kind of a two-thirds of a loaf for taxpayers.” […]

TOP COMMENTS 

QUOTATION

“Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed. That word is ‘Nazi.’ Nobody cares about their motives anymore. They joined what they joined. They lent their support and their moral approval. And, in so doing, they bound themselves to everything that came after. Who cares any more what particular knot they used in the binding?” ~~A.R. Moxon (2017)

TWEET OF THE DAY

x

BLAST FROM THE PAST

At Daily Kos on this date in 2012—Welcome to the culture war against teachers, coming to a theater near you:

The campaign against teachers is special, and worth paying attention to. It’s not like workers in general get much respect in our culture, at least not beyond vague lip service that only ever applies to the individual, powerless worker not asking for anything. And janitors, hotel housekeepers, cashiers, and a host of others could fill books with the daily substance of working in low-status professions, I’m sure. But right now, teachers are the subject of a campaign heavily funded and driven from the top down to take a profession that has long been respected by the public at large and make the people in the profession villains and pariahs, en route to undercutting the prestige, the decision-making ability, the working conditions, and, of course, the wages and benefits of the profession as a whole. What we’re watching right now is a specific front in the war on workers, and one with immense reach through our culture—and coming soon to a movie theater near you if it’s not already there, in the form of the poorly reviewed parent trigger drama Won’t Back Down.

(That it’s a war not just on teachers but also on the workers of the future and on the government just sweetens the pot for many of the people waging the war.)

On today’s Kagro in the Morning show: Greg Dworkin is back, just in time to wrap up that… thing… that was on TV last night. Parscale’s still in the news, this time over the Trump campaign’s finances.. Speaking of which, Trump’s broke campaign is now using government funding for ads.

RadioPublic|LibSyn|YouTube|Patreon|Square Cash (Share code: Send $5, get $5!)





Source link

Categories
Breaking New

Yes, A Tax Scandal Can Take Down a Politician




There are thousands of words in the New York Times account of Donald Trump’s taxes, and tens of thousands more will be published in the coming weeks.

But it’s the first 27 words of the piece that have the potential to inflict a serious wound on the president: “Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.”

The body of the story recounts years of dissembling about his finances: claiming huge losses to offset his tax liabilities, inflating his assets to obtain massive loans, asserting that: “Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.” It is rich in detail, and those details—hundreds of thousands of dollars in “consulting fees” to daughter Ivanka, a disputed $72.9-million tax refund, among other things—are not the stuff of easy interpretation (although $72,000 of deductible “business expenses” for hair styling, might raise a few eyebrows).

But that opening number—$750 in taxes from the self-proclaimed multi-billionaire—is easy to grasp, and easy to turn into a clear political message.

The proof of this can be found in a Tennessee Senate race back in 1976. First-term Senator Bill Brock, who had defeated Al Gore Sr., years earlier, was in a difficult race against Democrat James Sasser. In mid-October, after being pressured by the press about his finances, Brock conceded that he’d paid $2,026 on an income of $51,670—a rate of less than 4 percent at a time when someone making that much would have written the IRS a check for as much as 62 percent of his income.

Almost immediately, hot pink buttons began appearing reading: “I Paid More Taxes Than Brock.” As the story spread, the chair of the State Labor Council held a press conference comparing Brock’s taxes with those of an auto worker, steel worker and railroad engineer, each of whom paid far more taxes on far lower salaries than Brock. In November, Brock lost his seat by a 5-point margin.

The story had resonance because it confirmed “populist” notions about how things really work: that one way or another those in positions of power manage to avoid the burdens that afflict “regular” people. It’s what lay behind one of Richard Nixon’s liabilities during his Watergate days: his taxes. In one case, he had claimed a $500,000 tax deduction for donating his essentially worthless vice-presidential papers. In another, it turned out he had paid $792.81 in federal income taxes in 1970 and $878.03 in 1971, on a salary of $200,000. (His taxes were not included in the Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee.)

Asked about the story at his press conference Sunday evening, Trump explained (I use the word loosely) that the story was a hoax, a fake. A Trump spokesman told the Times that Tump had paid huge sums in taxes—without explaining what kind of taxes —but did not deny the basic assertion that he had paid only $750 a year for two years.

Perhaps the president, who has survived many seemingly fatal controversies, has so succeeded in convincing his acolytes not to believe anything critical of him that this latest story will have little effect. But I wonder: What if people start showing up in offices, factories, in malls and stores, with buttons and T-shirts reading: “I Paid More Taxes Than Trump”?

There’s an 89-year-old ex-Senator in Chattanooga who might be able to tell you what comes next.



Source link

Categories
Politics

Minimum Wage Workers Paid More In Payroll Taxes Than Trump Paid In Income Tax in 2017


Minimum wage workers making $7.25/hour paid more in payroll taxes than Trump paid in income taxes for the entire year of 2017.

House candidate Matthew Ryan Best tweeted:

Steven Dennis tweeted:

Trump didn’t want his tax returns released because he didn’t want those voters without college degrees finding out that he isn’t on their side. While they bust their backs and pay their taxes, Donald Trump was cheating the system.

Trump isn’t looking out for the little guy. He is the reason why low wage workers have to pay more in taxes to subsidize his fraud.

A key component of Trump’s populist billionaire mythology has been destroyed. Donald Trump is swimming in debt and is a prime example of why American workers are overtaxed.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

Follow and Like PoliticusUSA on Facebook





Source link

Categories
Breaking New

Trump could face criminal tax probe, Manhattan DA suggests


President Donald Trump

Tom Brenner | Reuters

President Donald Trump and his business could be facing a criminal tax probe by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, prosecutors suggested Monday in a court filing.

Prosecutors from Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr.’s office raised that possibility as they said that a grand jury subpoena seeking eight years of Trump’s tax returns and other records from the president’s accountants should be allowed by a federal appeals court, which is set to hear arguments in this case this week.

While prosecutors last month suggested that they might be eyeing the Trump Organization for possible bank and insurance fraud, Monday’s filing was the first time they had publicly said that their probe might encompass potential tax crimes.

Before last month, reports had suggested that Trump’s company was under investigation for how it accounted for hush money payments made to two women who said they had affairs with Trump, who has denied their claims.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the subpoeana is “overbroad” and was issued “in bad faith.”

But Vance’s team said in Monday’s court filing that the subpoena is more than justified by news reports that have raised the prospect that Trump and his company misstated the values of their business properties at different times.

The filings said that if misstatements about business properties were conveyed from the Trump Organization’s headquarters in New York to business partners, insurers, potential lenders or tax authorities, that could mean the breaking of state laws such as scheme to defraud, falsification of business records, insurance fraud and criminal tax fraud, the filing said.

Vance’s office also said in the filing that the scope “of the subpoena is moderate when compared to the temporal scope of misconduct alleged in public reports.”

“The New York Times reported that Appellant engaged in ‘dubious tax schemes during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud’ and that he ‘helped his parents dodge taxes’ by ‘set[ting] up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts’ and undervaluing assets,” the filing said.

Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Vance declined to comment.

The Supreme Court ruled this summer that Trump did not have an absolute right to avoid having his tax returns and other financial records subpoenaed by a state prosecutor while serving in the White House.

But the Supreme Court also allowed the president to continue to challenge the subpoena, which was issued at Vance’s behest, on other grounds, in lower federal court.

A federal judge in Manhattan last month rejected new arguments by Trump’s lawyers to block the subpoena.

Trump then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

A hearing on the appeal is scheduled for Friday.



Source link

Categories
Politics

Rachel Maddow Says New York Prosecutors Could Fast-Track Trump Tax Return Subpoena


Rachel Maddow said on Thursday night that she isn’t completely convinced that the subpoena over Donald Trump’s tax returns will have to wait until after the election to be resolved, as many legal and political experts have concluded.

According to the MSNBC host, it’s possible for investigators to fast-track the process, which opens up the possibility of resolving the fight over the president’s financial documents before the November election.

“They might try to go faster, if they want to,” Maddow said. “They could file a motion to accelerate the entry of this Supreme Court opinion into the docket to try to get that trip to the lower courts fast-tracked to start the fight over the subpoena, which shouldn’t take forever to resolve.”

“That will be the first thing to watch here,” she added.

Video:

Maddow said:

The Supreme Court, in the normal course of events, would leave this ruling effectively sort of simmering until it’s cleared off its docket now. They’d leave it sort of simmering for 25 days before anybody could act on it, before those New York prosecutors, for example, could get this thing going again in the lower New York courts to fight the president over the terms of the subpoena once and for all. The prosecutors hoping to prevail, whereupon they’d get the documents. Under the normal course of events, they are supposed to wait 25 days before they start moving – but they might try to go faster, if they want to. For example, they could file a motion to accelerate the entry of this Supreme Court opinion into the docket to try to get that trip to the lower courts fast-tracked to start the fight over the subpoena, which shouldn’t take forever to resolve. That will be the first thing to watch here. Watch to see if they do that.

The American people deserve to see Trump’s tax returns

While it’s still unlikely that the American people will see the president’s tax returns before Election Day – even if New York investigators do happen to get their hands on them – that doesn’t mean voters shouldn’t demand it every day between now and Nov. 3.

After all, Trump has spent his entire term raising more and more questions about where his loyalties lie, particularly as it pertains to Russia. Disclosing his finances would go a long way in explaining why, for example, this president looked the other way even after knowing Putin meddled in U.S. elections or paid to have American soldiers killed.

There is a reason Donald Trump has spent the past five years hiding his tax returns, and the American people deserve to know why – especially before they decide whether to give him four more years in the White House.

Follow Sean Colarossi on Facebook and Twitter





Source link

Categories
Breaking New

Supreme Court splits on Trump tax cases, potentially shielding returns until after election



Ruling on several House subpoenas issued to Trump’s accountants and banks, a seven-justice majority said courts did not do enough to examine Democratic lawmakers claims that they needed the records as part of inquiries aimed at strengthening laws combating a wide range of ills including money laundering, official conflicts of interest and foreign influence in U.S. elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinions Thursday in both of the politically-sensitive subpoena disputes, said lower-court judges needed to take “a balanced approach” to the Congressional subpoenas, closely examining Congress’ need for the information, ensuring that the subpoenas are tailored to those purposes and considering whether there might be alternate sources of information.

“Without limits on its subpoena powers, Congress could ‘exert an imperious controul’ over the Executive Branch and aggrandize itself at the President’s expense, just as the Framers feared,” Roberts wrote for a seven-justice majority, citing the Federalist Papers. “Congressional subpoenas for information from the President…implicate special concerns regarding the separation of powers. The courts below did not take adequate account of those concerns.”

Two of the court’s Republican appointees were even more skeptical of the Congressional effort. Justice Samuel Alito said the court’s majority did not impose enough of a burden on lawmakers to demonstrate need for the records, while Justice Clarence Thomas said Congress lacks the power to subpoena private records from anyone outside the context of an impeachment battle.

In the case involving a probe a local prosecutor in Manhattan is conducting into Trump’s businesses, all the justices rebuffed claims by Trump’s attorneys that he is absolutely immune from criminal subpoenas while in office.

In the majority opinion, Roberts rebuffed the president by joining the court’s four Democratic appointees to also reject the Justice Department’s narrower argument that prosecutors should be required to show a “heightened need” to get the records.

Roberts said the fact that the records sought are not official, but pertain to the president’s personal and business affairs, meant that requiring a special demonstration of need by prosecutors would be unwise.

“In the absence of a need to protect the Executive, the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence. Requiring a state grand jury to meet a heightened standard of need would hobble the grand jury’s ability to acquire ‘all information that might possibly bear on its investigation,” Roberts wrote.

However, even as the high court turned down Trump’s arguments, the justices seemed to ensure weeks or months of ongoing litigation, because Trump will now be able to make other legal arguments that the records are legally privileged.

If lower courts deliver any adverse rulings between now and November, Trump’s lawyers could make another bid to have the Supreme Court freeze the process, effectively postponing action until after the election.

Despite the inconclusive nature of the rulings, Trump reacted angrily to the decisions, apparently treating the prospect of ongoing litigation as a humiliation and a defeat.

“The Supreme Court sends case back to Lower Court, arguments to continue. This is all a political prosecution. I won the Mueller Witch Hunt, and others, and now I have to keep fighting in a politically corrupt New York. Not fair to this Presidency or Administration!” Trump wrote on Twitter within minutes of the decisions. “Courts in the past have given ‘broad deference.’ BUT NOT ME!”

The final decisions of the Supreme Court’s term came after Trump bitterly complained of losses last month in cases involving LGBTQ rights in the workplace and the administration’s effort to end protections for so-called Dreamers. Those setbacks led Trump to invoke unusually violent imagery, lashing out at the court and trying to turn the defeats into a campaign issue.

“These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020! “

The pair of subpoena rulings Thursday leave up in the air whether voters will get to see the tax returns he has resisted disclosing since launching his presidential campaign in 2015, despite promising at one point to make them public.

At the heart of both cases are questions about whether third-party companies, like Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA, can be compelled to produce the president’s personal documents while he’s in office.

By releasing decisions into July, the Supreme Court has parted with its usual practice over the last few decades of issuing its final — and most controversial — opinions of the term on one of the last days of June, a departure that coincides with broader delays resulting from the coronavirus pandemic.

Covid-19 outbreaks in the United States led the court to suspend in-person arguments, hold its first-ever telephone arguments and push some cases into the fall. The Trump subpoena cases were originally set to be heard on March 31, but the actual, virtual arguments were conducted on May 12.

The justices left only one other case to their final opinion day: a dispute over whether a large swath of eastern Oklahoma is actually an Indian reservation.

While the New York prosecutor’s investigation could be considered more urgent legally, since it involves a criminal investigation, the House inquiries may pack more of a political punch. That’s because while records turned over under a grand jury subpoena are required to be kept secret at least until charges are filed, lawmakers are under no such obligation and could release the Trump financial files in the lead-up to the election.

At issue in the House case are subpoenas that House committees issued last year to Mazars USA, as well as major Trump lenders Deutsche Bank and Capital One. All the queries, according to lawmakers, are intended to inform efforts to update ethics, disclosure and money laundering laws, as well as those pertaining to foreign influence in elections and government.

But Trump’s legal team argued that the demands were tantamount to political harassment, and that the House’s claims of a “legislative purpose” were a pretense to simply investigate the president.

When arguments were eventually held on the disputes almost two months ago, Thomas and Alito sounded highly sympathetic to the president’s arguments and hostile to the House’s.

The court’s other three Republican appointees — Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — were more equivocal and did not sound like certain votes for Trump’s stance. Most of the court’s liberal justices seemed to favor some authority for the House to get the information it is seeking.

Trump’s legal challenge questions lawmakers’ long-held principle that Congress has broad authority to seek documents it needs to support its constitutional lawmaking power, as well as the duty to oversee the executive branch’s implementation of the laws it has passed. But the justices repeatedly questioned House Counsel Douglas Letter about the limits to Congress’ investigative power and the outer edge of what might be considered a “legitimate legislative purpose” for its investigations.

At its core, the president’s legal fight with Congress is over how close a link the courts will require between House committees’ investigative efforts aimed at allegations of presidential misconduct and lawmakers’ specific plans to pass legislation.

Before Thursday’s ruling, lower courts agreed that a broad interest in government oversight and the possibility of changes to mundane legislation like financial disclosure laws is enough to justify congressional subpoenas — and that history has shown this was the precise intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Trump’s lawyers, though, contended that investigating whether a president broke the law in his financial dealings is beyond Congress’ legislative powers and that, outside of an impeachment inquiry, no congressional action to pursue such allegations is legitimate.

That would appear to leave Congress with only a few options for reining in a president who is defying the law: withholding approval of legislation, funding or presidential nominees. Criminal law enforcement is also a possibility, but that is unlikely at the federal level because of a Justice Department opinion barring indictment of a sitting president.

One central point of discussion by the lawyers and the justices during oral arguments was the 1997 Supreme Court decision that rejected similar immunity claims from President Bill Clinton’s lawyers and allowed a sexual-harassment civil suit against him by an Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, to proceed.

Clinton’s statements in his subsequent deposition in that suit prolonged the Whitewater independent counsel investigation and led to his impeachment by the House.

Several justices said Trump’s lawyers were ignoring or downplaying Clinton v. Jones, which green-lighted civil litigation that many would consider less weighty than a congressional subpoena or a criminal investigation.

“The aura of this case is really: Sauce for the goose serves the gander, as well,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by Clinton, said during the arguments.

The other case considered by the justices stemmed from a drive by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., to use state-level grand jury subpoenas to get eight years of Trump’s tax returns and other financial records.

Trump’s personal lawyers said permitting such prospecting would lead to a flurry of similar requests, potentially unleashing 2,300 local prosecutors to target the president.

Last September, Trump sued Vance to try to block grand jury subpoenas as part of an investigation into alleged fraud by the Trump Organization and other matters.

Trump’s attorneys made a sweeping argument that presidents are completely immune from all concrete steps in the criminal justice process —ranging from subpoena to arrest and prosecution — while in office.

Despite more than a year of litigation, precisely what Trump-related tax and financial records the accounting firm and the banks have and would turn over in response to the subpoenas remains somewhat murky. Mazars is believed to have the president’s tax returns dating back more than a decade. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s subpoena to that firm demands a wide array of financial records spanning eight years, but doesn’t explicitly seek tax returns.

Last August, in response to an order from a federal appeals court in New York, Capital One said it had no tax returns from Trump or his family. Deutsche Bank said it does not have the president’s returns but has some for two people linked to Trump, believed to be family members.





Source link

Categories
Breaking New

Citing tax benefits and nineteenth-century promises, six richmond residents sue to keep Lee aloft



The new lawsuit, filed by six residents who own property on Richmond’s Monument Avenue, claims that the statue’s removal would adversely affect the plaintiffs by nullifying the neighborhood’s status as a National Historic Landmark district, resulting in “the loss of favorable tax treatment and reduction in property values.”

“Plaintiffs will also suffer injury as a result of the loss of a priceless work of art from their neighborhood and the degradation of the internationally recognized avenue on which they reside,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit, filed in Richmond Circuit Court, says removal of the statue would also violate the monument’s 1890 deed, which stipulates that the Commonwealth of Virginia “will hold said Statue and pedestal and circle of ground perpetually sacred to the monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that [Virginia] will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it,” according to court documents.

Patrick McSweeny, an attorney for the Monument Avenue residents, confirmed to CNN that they had refiled a lawsuit, but he would not comment on the suit’s substance.

In a statement on their website, the Monument Avenue Preservation Society, a neighborhood group dedicated to historic preservation, expressed support for the removal of the Lee statue and others.

“Black lives matter, and we support the initiatives to remove the Confederate monuments from Monument Avenue,” the statement said. “For too long, we have overlooked the inherent racism of these monuments, and for too long we have allowed the grandeur of the architecture to blind us to the insult of glorifying men for their roles in fighting to perpetuate the inhumanity of slavery.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said Thursday that a separate suit seeking to halt the removal of the Lee statue had been dismissed for lack of standing. The judge in that case, however, extended an injunction against the removal and gave the plaintiff more time to file a new complaint.

“I’ll keep fighting as long as I have to,” Herring wrote on Twitter. “This statue needs to come down.”



Source link

Categories
Breaking New

US tax filing deadline moved to July 15, Steven Mnuchin says


“We are moving Tax Day from April 15 to July 15,” Secretary Steven Mnuchin tweeted. “All taxpayers and businesses will have this additional time to file and make payments without interest or penalties.”

The White House had announced previously they were deferring tax payments for 90 days, but that Americans would still need to file by April 15.

Now, the deadline will be extended into the summer.

Mnuchin said Americans with refunds should still file now.

“I encourage all taxpayers who may have tax refunds to file now to get your money,” he wrote.

The administration has been seeking ways to blunt the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak, which is expected to cause harm to both major industries and small businesses. Economists have predicted a potentially historic spike in unemployment claims.

Lawmakers have been haggling over a massive stimulus package with members of the administration, but Trump has also sought out ways to mitigate economic concerns on his own.

He’s already signed a package that would expand paid sick leave for workers to allow them to remain home if they fall ill from the disease.

And he’s endorsed a measure that would send checks directly to certain Americans, saying he wanted to “go big” in his attempts to keep the economy afloat.

Earlier in the week, Mnuchin said that individual and small business filers would be able to defer payments of up to $1 million and corporations can defer up to $10 million without incurring interest or penalties.

Usually both the tax filing and payment is due on April 15.

Taxpayers can still request a six-month extension to file returns, like they could in any other year.

The new deadlines announced by the administration apply to federal tax income payments only. It’s up to states to set their own deadlines.

Some states are making changes due to the coronavirus. In California, individuals will have until June 15 to both file and pay their state taxes.

This story has been updated to include additional reporting.





Source link