Are wealthier Americans paying their "fair share" of taxes? No.  Assuming that one measures "fair…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Myth Versus Fact: Paying "Fair Share" of Taxes

Are wealthier Americans paying their "fair share" of taxes?

No.  Assuming that one measures "fair share" as a rough equivalency between income earned and income taxes paid, wealthy Americans pay far more than their fair share, as helpfully illustrated by the Tax Foundation:

. [caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="637" caption=""Fair Share?""][/caption]

.…[more]

January 23, 2018 • 11:43 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Press Releases
CFIF Comments on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Remarks on “The Future of Internet Regulation” Print E-mail
Wednesday, April 26 2017

Today, Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Chairman Ajit Pai delivered a highly-anticipated speech entitled "The Future of Internet Regulation," setting forth his proposal to reverse radical internet regulations imposed by the Obama Administration FCC. 

In response, Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee issued the following statement: 

"Since the 1990s, the internet has flourished and transformed our lives like no other innovation on record.  As Chairman Pai cogently stated in his remarks, 'The internet is the greatest free-market success story in history.'  And that occurred because administrations spanning two decades and both political parties, beginning with Clinton/Gore, wisely chose a 'light touch' regulatory approach to the internet.

"Unfortunately, two years ago the Obama Administration's FCC radically reversed two decades of bipartisan consensus by needlessly reclassifying internet service as a 'public utility' under 1930s laws enacted for copper-wire telephone service.  That reversal was not based upon evidence, law or logic.  The internet wasn't 'broken' or in need of a heavy-handed federal regulatory 'fix.'  Rather, it was a scheme to extend government control over yet another sector of our economy. 

"The negative consequences of the FCC's reclassification of internet service as some sort of Depression-era 'public utility' were immediate and profound.  As the Chairman noted, domestic broadband capital expenditures declined by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, which marked the first time that such investment declined outside of a recession during the internet era.  That applied to both large and small internet service providers. 

"Proponents of heavy-handed internet regulation will now roll out their usual litany of scare tactics and hyperbole.  Don't believe them. Chairman Pai is simply restoring the bipartisan light-touch regulatory status quo that existed for more than two decades. 

“Simply put, the principle of a free and open internet is something on which all parties agree.  What American consumers didn't need was a hyper-partisan FCC suddenly regulating the internet as a 'public utility' under the pretense of 'protecting consumers.'  Accordingly, CFIF applauds Chairman Pai for moving to restore common sense to internet regulation and the FCC."

###

 


Page 14 of 171
Question of the Week   
Which one of the following U.S. Naval officers is famous for stating: ‘Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Democrats' solution to the government shutdown could be as harmful to the party as the shutdown was itself.The war between hardline progressive and centrist Democrats inflamed by the party's 2016 presidential primary contest has ebbed and flowed, but the agreement Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., came to with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday ignited yet another…[more]
 
 
—Emily Jashinsky, Washington Examiner
— Emily Jashinsky, Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

Traditionally, the President's political party loses Congressional seats in midterm elections. Will the positive economic trends being generated by tax reform allow Republicans to retain enough seats in 2018 to maintain majorities in both houses?