AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong on Clinton tax claim

This article starts strong, with the pounding arguments from Trump and Clinton in order to compare their claims on tax policy.

"She is raising your taxes, and I am lowering your taxes. ...She's raising everybody's taxes massively" -Donald Trump

"He would end up raising taxes on middle-class families" -Hillary Clinton

So when analyzing the facts, the argument is that Clinton is not raising taxes on everyone, but instead just the 5% of wealthiest Americans. However, Trump continues to argue that she is going to affect everyone massively. But what would help stimulate the economy is Trump's proposal for businesses to receive tax cuts, even if he is raising middle-class family taxes. But I wonder just how much lowering tax cuts on businesses would help the economy with his other plans. If Trump's plan eliminates the personal exemption as the article explains, which currently allows households to reduce their taxable income by $4,050 for each member of the household, including their children, then it seems people will have less money to put back into the economy overall. I'm not sure what is best, but they both seem to be raising taxes regardless.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-10-09/ap-fact-check-trump-wrong-on-clinton-tax-claim

Education Comparison NV vs. NY

 The tables below show comparisons in Nevada as well as New York for spending in percentages in FY 2010 while taking a closer look at spending on education. The first pie chart shows spending at state level for Nevada health care is highest at 21% with education at 17%. The second chart observes local spending, and there is a sharp decrease in health care spending to 6%, and an increase in education to 28%.

Then when looking at New York is FY 2010 health care at state level is much higher than Nevada’s at 37%, however education is 7% than Nevada. Next, New York’s when observing local spending in comparison to Nevada, the highest percent in spending is also education at 34%.

Now what is interesting is comparing where the revenue comes from for Nevada and New York for education. It shows that at local level New York spends more local revenue than almost all other states which explains why health care takes a hit in comparison to their state spending where health care is much higher. Then Nevada is the opposite, where their state revenue is much higher and as a result they rely more on state revenue for education. Although these do not take into account high or low income states, it is interesting to see the comparison in the US Cenus per-pupil spending where New York is almost at $18,000 per-pupil spending, and Nevada is significantly lower at only half the spending, $9,000. The per-pupil spending shows that Nevada students receive about the average of around $10,000. It would be intersting to then compare test scores to see if such a jump makes a significant difference in a child’s education.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2010_NV_local

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2010NYbl_17bs2n#usgs302

http://massbudget.org/report_window.php?loc=ed_census_2012.html

Chohnny's Public Finance and Fiscal Management Blog 2016 - Article #2

China's parliament proposes new environmental tax benefits: State Media

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-tax-environment-idUSKCN11413L

For years China has been discussing new tax laws to reduce emissions from heavy industry. Now their parliament has proposed increasing tax benefits for companies that cut pollution by more than the national standard. I think this is a great way to encourage companies to reduce emissions and that it could be very effective. Rather than punishing companies and getting a lot of negative attention and feedback, this is an incentive that they can get behind. If it is passed, the companies would have to reduce emissions to at least half of the national requirement, and would then only pay half the taxes levied for air, water and soil pollution. However companies in the agriculture and transport sectors are excluded from the tax law because they are much smaller polluters than industrial companies such as steel, oil and coal. But I think they should be included in some way, to help encourage more environmentally conscious behaviors on their part as well. But this is a step in the right direction overall and I think people will react more positively to it.

Chohnny's Public Finance and Fiscal Management Blog 2016 - Article #1

With More People Hitting the Road, It’s Time for a Carbon Tax

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-more-people-hitting-the-road-its-time-for-a-carbon-tax/2016/09/11/87eb0f4a-7085-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html?utm_term=.1f3a2e18f049

This article shows that despite efforts being made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, Americans are now burning record amounts of gasoline. The efforts that have been made to encourage a more sustainable and environmentally conscious nation are backfiring in some ways. The article states, "...higher fuel efficiency might also encourage some people to drive more than they would have otherwise, because their gas bills are lower." This shows that by improving technology and making cars more efficient people actually may be driving more. Therefore, the next step would be to enforce a carbon tax to ensure people are more conscious about both big and small actions that can help to reduce emissions overall. Although the Obama administration has worked towards this, it seems as though a carbon tax is out of reach for the time being, as it is talked about frequently but there are no actions by Congress to back it up.