Tax reform results are easier to see at the state level because there are suitable nearby comparisons. In contrast, federal tax reforms lack parallel contemporaneous comparisons.  As a result much federal tax “analysis” is wasted arguing over partisan conceits and counterfactuals.

Tax reform can alter far-reaching economic incentives.  Reductions in state income tax rates for business can attract new employers to enter the state and induce existing employers to make long term investments, thus creating jobs.  Texas is renowned for choosing no business or personal income taxes, and the choice seems associated with robust Texas job creation, while the national economy and high tax states created relatively few jobs.  Officials in Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, and Ohio have cited the highly productive results of the Texas tax model.

Nationwide, 61% of business income flows through small businesses and that income is taxed by the feds at individual rates as high as 39.6% – a heavy burden to anyone.  Thus, businesses react to changes in both business and individual taxation.  In 2011, six states – Florida, Nevada, Sout Dakota, Texas, Washington State and Wyoming – levied no personal income tax but thirteen states – California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia and Wisconsin – seized more than $1,000 per capita and Connecticut and New York gorged themselves on more than $1,800 per capita.  High levels of personal income tax can have a chilling effect on business investment.  With that in mind, North Carolina is considering ways to reduce its $1,027 per capita in personal income tax.  North Carolina is planning to cap the mortgage interest and property tax deductions and impose a single lower income tax rate.  As well, North Carolina plans a slightly lower sales tax, but will applying the rates to a broader base, including some services.

We are nearing the season for haggling out the next federal budget, squabbling over government overspending; and striking ostrich poses over the $17 trillion in U.S. debt.  Federal tax reform proposals are inevitable.  A few will be genuine attempts to kick start employment and curb new debt.  Many more will focus on bribing constituencies who demand frequent entitlement upgrades.  Expect proposals from the left that punish high earners and from the right that demand all earners start paying at least some taxes.  Favor tax proposals that incent businesses to invest – because that creates jobs – while leaving us all enough earnings to properly care for our families.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

Some health care providers were able to land juicy deals (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry which avoided the negotiated prices for drugs that it endures under Medicaid).  In contrast, the medical device industry was slapped with a 2.3% excise tax (on sales, irrespective of profit or loss).   Managed healthcare firm profits are capped and physicians remain crushed by Medicare and Medicaid paperwork and laughable reimbursement rates.  Clearly some lobbied more effectively than others.

The patient connection to the healthcare system has been reengineered and everyone must participate — you have no choice.  If you don’t buy health insurance, the IRS will fine you and the fine will increase in size each year.

Congress chose to favor the elderly (with continued Medicare) and the sick (with a ban on insurance that excludes pre-existing conditions).  Congress chose to force young and well patients to pay higher premiums than their care costs so that the excess funds could help pay for old and sick patients.  If young and well patients decided to roll the dice and skip insurance, the ACA system will run a higher deficit – so Congress invented a fine for being uninsured.

Congress chose mandatory treatment coverage far more extensive than typical in today’s policies, increasing the cost of coverage.  Some low and middle income families will find health insurance unaffordable so Congress created liberal subsidies for this voter bloc.  And, ever eager to burnish its populist street creds, Congress imposed a new  3.8% “Obamacare” surtax on investment income.  Shortfalls in government funding will come from those who actually pay income taxes, a minority of Americans.

The $2.7 trillion health care system needed renovations that vigorously curb costs – the major impediment to people obtaining the right health services in the right venue.  The ACA does almost nothing in that regard.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

Advertising agencies believe they can infuse their client’s brands with valuable traits such as reliability, sizzle, quality, value, and efficacy in socially redeeming roles.  When consumers act based on the perception of positive brand attributes, increased revenue streams can pay off handsomely.  Curiously, some consumers treat a brand as a statement about themselves – for example their own level of taste or their social position.

Havas Media  is a French advertising agency that just completed a study on consumer attitudes and advert effectiveness that is far deeper than the pretentious twaddle served up in most advertising circles.  The study concludes that “consumers reward brands that listen to them, provide good quality, innovative products at fair prices; make their lives happier, easier and healthier; and support the environment, the economy and the community”   In short, consumer actions are partly about how the brand pays off personally and partly about how the brand interacts with the community.

Some brands are unimportant.  For example, US consumers would not care if 92% of the brands they encounter disappeared.  In contrast consumers are deeply attached to some brands e.g. IKEA, Google, Nestle, Danone and others.  The Havas study reveals that “the more the brand contributes to improve the wellbeing of individuals, communities and the environment, the more meaningful it becomes.” and that “meaningfulness” dictates consumers attachment to the brand.  Attachment results in willingness to pay more for products produced in a socially responsible way – 53% of consumers will do so.   Still 64% of consumers think most companies are trying to be “responsible” only to improve their image.

The study will not revolutionize advertising, but it may change the emphasis in how $462 is spent to influence your buying.  Expect more emphasis on brands’ societal involvement.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research

NSA and FBI chose a terrorist-oriented “boil the ocean” approach when in April 2013 they convinced a FISA court judge to order Verizon Wireless to deliver all “call data” every day. That means the feds, under a court order, can now study the domestic and international communications behavior of about 100 million consumers (since Verizon customers sometimes call non-Verizon subscribers).

When the feds rake that data and find interesting patterns they can obtain court orders for wiretaps, revealing conversations in real time.

This court order affects a huge percentage of ordinary Americans and the vast majority of us are law-abiding. No one in the know has been forthcoming about why the order was sought, and the FISA court ordered silence on the details.  Indeed we became aware of this court order only because a British newspaper published it.

But key questions remain. What is so important as to warrant wholesale surveillance of the American public by the feds and how long should we wait for a convincing explanation?

It had better be convincing because peoples’ trust of the federal government is in short supply.

Indeed, the supply is depleted by the IRS’ targeting of political foes, the DOJ’s evasions on “Fast and Furious,” the preposterous explanation of why Americans died in Benghazi, the unstated reasons why DOJ mounted a 30-phone dragnet against AP reporters, and DOJ’s partisan allegation that a Fox reporter is a co-conspirator because he reported on an issue embarrassing to the DOJ.

Spokespersons defending these abominations loose credence with the public.

This national surveillance offends us because it probes our private lawful affairs. It needs a truthful explanation from someone the public believes is not dumping another load of falsified “talking points.”

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research.  For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org. 

This weekend we started downloading a map app – high tech consumers in action, but progress ground to a halt because we were uncomfortable with the app’s demand for an email identity to associate with the app.  There is no good reason for the app to need that and even less reason for us to waste a well-behaved email identity.  If we give it up, it will be henceforth tracked and thoroughly spammed.

We created an email account for our dog under an amusing pseudonym.

Spam won’t bother him since he doesn’t check for email, never clicks on dodgy commercial offers, and he hasn’t mentioned a Nigerian lottery prize that he wants to deposit in our bank account.  Neither he nor we will use his email identity to send email that could trick you or to comment as paid troll on political sites.

It’s easy to create an account that can’t be traced back to a real person — hackers do it all the time.

Some expert users have worse Internet experience than our dog.  They suffered hackers draining their online bank accounts, watched vicious attacks on others launched from their email or social media accounts, and had their personal data and online accounts deleted.

For program operations purposes, governments are just beginning to fight back against those who fake identities for criminal reasons.

A system called eSignature is spreading in use among government departments who need to assure the identities of parties they deal with are genuine.

For example when you want to share a tax return with a financial institution, the IRS requires you to use eSignature.  It lets you authorize sending your tax return to a financial institution and to assure the receiving institution that it’s indeed your tax return.  That cuts back on issuance of fraudulent loans in other people’s name.

There are prudent steps that casual Internet consumers can take to protect themselves.  The top 7 are lucidly discussed by Linda Bernstein in a Forbes article.

Much of your responsibility centers on keeping up vanilla virus protection and a firewall, plus selecting and regularly changing a strong, non-obvious password – one for each important account.

So-called security questions and answers are in effect passwords and should be maintained too.  Our dog knows the rest – no clicking on dodgy links and don’t even sniff at anything that sounds too good to be true.

If you really want to dive deeper into identity verification, be warned that the pool is bottomless.

For example, eventually all passwords may be replaced by 2-factor security (a password, plus a forced retrieval of one-time passcode from a separate device/system such as a cellphone or an immediately generated email).

Both offline verification and various depths of encryption will play an increasing role in the future.  Otherwise, consider getting a security dog.

Alan Daley is a retired businessman who lives in Florida and who writes for The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research