笑傲江湖

国家喊话“涨工资”，开始了_我的网站

A |     WASHINGTON -- Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5. The Moores are the latest example of plaintiffs whose lawsuits seem to simply be exercising their legal rights, but whose cases are backed by others with enormous amounts of money or a consequential social issue at stake. The Moores sought help from the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute.Underscoring the case's importance at a recent Heritage Foundation event, lawyer Paul Clement said, "The constitutionality of a wealth tax may well be decided in the context of this case.”Details of the Moores' involvement with the company, initially called KisanKraft Machine Tools Private Limited, were first reported by Tax Notes, which caters to tax professionals. The public documents are filings with the Indian government.At issue in the case is a provision of the 2017 tax bill enacted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by then-President Donald Trump. The law applies to companies that are owned by Americans, but do their business in foreign countries. It imposes a one-time tax on investors' shares of profits that have not been passed along to them, in order to offset other tax benefits. The measure is expected to generate $340 billion in tax revenues.The Moores, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative think tanks, contend that the provision violates the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to impose an income tax on Americans.The $15,000 tax bill was for the Moores' share of KisanKraft's profits."If you haven’t received any income, how can you be required to pay income taxes?” Charles Moore asks in a video posted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.But far from being a passive investor with no influence over the company, Moore, who worked at Microsoft during his career in software development, served on KisanKraft's board of directors for five years.“The story the Moores told about Charles' involvement with KisanKraft is directly at odds with the fiduciary responsibilities of an individual holding a board seat for an Indian company,” Mindy Herzfeld, a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, wrote in Tax Notes.And there are other indications of Moore's more extensive involvement with KisanKraft than his testimony indicated. The company paid for his travel to India four times and he made at least two investments beyond the $40,000 stake he put up in 2006.Moore also was prepared to invest an another roughly $250,000. That money was ultimately returned by KisanKraft, along with 12% interest.One other inconsistency is that while the Moores say they jointly invested the money, only Charles Moore's name appears in company documents.The couple and their lawyers did not disclose any of that information in legal filings in three different federal courts, including the Supreme Court.“The original declaration on which the case is built is full of lies,” said Reuven Avi-Yonah, an international tax expert at the University of Michigan law school.In a brief conversation with The Associated Press, Kathleen Moore said she and her husband would not discuss the case and referred questions to their lawyers. Andrew Grossman, the Moore's lead attorney, did not respond to messages seeking comment.The omissions, along with the Moores' failure to take advantage of other legal options that would have deferred, if not eliminated, their tax liability make Avi-Yonah and other experts in international tax law suspect the case was manufactured to get at a larger issue, the tax on billionaires that has been proposed by some prominent Democrats but never enacted.A wealth tax would apply not to the incomes of the very richest Americans, but their assets, like stock holdings, that now only get taxed when they are sold. “There really was no reason for the court to take it on, other than to send a signal to warn off the Congress from passing a billionaire tax," said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.Other provisions of the tax code could be upended by the court's decision, including measures relating to partnerships, limited liability companies and other business formations, Rosenthal said.Changes to those provisions also could affect some justices' finances. Chief Justice John Roberts holds a one-eighth interest worth up to $15,000 in an Irish partnership that owns a cottage in county Limerick, Ireland, and Justice Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni, owns a limited liability company that generated between $50,000 and $100,000 in income last year from Nebraska real estate, according to the justices' financial disclosure forms. Two other recent Supreme Court cases advanced by conservative interests also raised questions about whether facts had been manipulated to get the disputes in front of the court. One of those involved a wedding website designer in Colorado who did not want to work with same-sex couples and a public high school football coach in Washington who wanted to pray on the field.Rosenthal said that “the ugly facts matter” and that the justices could return the Moores' case to a lower court without ruling on it.Charles Moore said in his sworn statement that he agreed to invest in the company that was being formed by his friend and former colleague at Microsoft, Ravindra “Ravi” Kumar Agrawal, because he liked the business plan and trusted his friend.“Moreover, I thought KisanKraft was formed for a noble purpose and had the potential to improve the lives of small and marginal farmers in India,” Moore said. The case had already kicked up ethical questions. Senate Democrats had asked Justice Samuel Alito to step aside from the case because of his interactions with David Rivkin, another lawyer who also is representing the Moores. The Democrats said Alito had cast doubt on his ability to judge the case fairly because he sat for four hours of Wall Street Journal opinion page interviews with an editor at the newspaper and Rivkin.Alito rejected the demands in a four-page statement issued by the court in which he said there “is no valid reason” for his recusal. ___Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.___This story has been corrected to reflect that Mindy Herzfeld is a professor of tax practice at the University of Florida law school, not director of the master's program in international tax.。    本文来自微信公众号：国民经略 （ID：guominjinglve），作者：凯风，题图来自：AI生成                    涨工资，开始落地。                   01                    最低工资标准，全面普涨。                   近日，人社部发布最新各省份最低工资标准，各省“第一档”最低工资，首次全面站上2000元大关。                             与去年相比，最低工资迎来普遍上涨，多省涨幅超过10%，与高层关于“合理提高最低工资标准”的要求相一致。                   虽然集体上调，但发展阶段不同、企业成本有别，最低工资标准存在一定差距。

B |                    即使一省之内，也按照城市发展形势，分出一二三四档，第一档涵盖省会和经济强市。

C |                    从“第一档”来看，上海、北京、天津、广东、江苏、浙江、山东位居前列。                   上海以2740元蝉联榜首，北京、天津、广东均超2500元，江苏、浙江为2490元，山东为2400元。

D |                    这7个省份均为东部经济大省，既是人均GDP最高的省份，也是财政转移支付的净贡献者。                   与之对比，全国还有6省最低工资不足2100元，包括甘肃、青海、新疆、黑龙江、江西、海南。                   令人意外的是，“垫底”的不是人均GDP倒数第一的甘肃，而是中部的江西。                             其实，这是统计时差所致。                   江西最低工资标准仍停留于2024年，今年最新版本正在征求意见。                   根据意见稿，江西一类区域最低工资将由2000元调整到2240元，将于12月初开始实施。

E |                    可见，江西最低工资涨幅也超10%，处于中游水平，与其经济实力相称。                   02                    最低工资，为何突然大范围上涨？                    日前，中办、国办联合发文强调，“完善最低工资标准调整机制，合理提高最低工资标准”。                             就在年初，国家发改委在相关报告中明确，“适当加快提高最低工资标准，2025年原则上所有省份都要调整”。                   根据规定，最低工资标准，一般2年左右调整一次。                   然而，个别省份已经连续3～4年未有动作，最低工资仍停留于几年前水平。                   事实上，这一轮要调整的不只是最低工资标准，还有更广义的“涨工资”。                   今年5月，中办、国办在关于“现代企业制度”的文件提出，推动企业健全工资合理增长机制。                             此前，中办、国办印发促消费文件，将“城乡居民增收促进行动”置于各大政策之首。                   在年初的国常会上，明确提及“大力支持居民增收，促进工资性收入合理增长”……                    层级之高、文件之密集、定调之鲜明，足见“涨工资”已成为自上而下的共识。                   之所以聚焦于工资，是因为在我国，工资性收入占居民收入60%左右，是绝大多数人唯一收入来源。

F |                    当然，工资不是想涨就能涨。                   政策能决定的只是最低工资，给出的只是建议性的工资指导线。                   对于普通人来说，工资能否上涨，取决于供求关系，更取决于经济形势和宏观大环境。                   即使如此，最低工资普涨，仍然释放出难得的积极信号。                   毕竟，最低工资，不只与弱势群体有关，还关乎失业保险金、病假工资、工资指导线等标准的制定。                   更关键的是，“下限”抬升，有望形成逐级传导效应，对于所有劳动者都不是坏事。                   03                    “涨工资”，为何越来越重要了？                    长期以来，“涨工资”被视为企业与个体之事，对于个人当然很重要。

G |                    今年一系列文件出台，标志着“涨工资”，已上升到国之大事、民之大事的高度。                   “涨工资”关乎的不只是民生，更是扩大消费、刺激生育、打破通缩、重塑预期乃至长远发展的大局。                   这从顶层文件的涵盖范围就可见一斑：“改善民生”、“提振消费”，“建立现代企业制度”等等。                   消费是收入的函数，没有收入增长作为根本支撑，提振消费、刺激内需就无从着手。                   一个可喜的变化是，今年从上到下的促消费文件，不再简单着眼于发券，而将“增收”放在了首位。                   生育同样受到“收入预期”与“养育成本”的双重拉扯，增收与减负缺一不可。                   更为可喜的变化是，今年9月，倡议多年的育儿补贴终于落地，直达个人账户。                   用官方的话说，这是新中国成立以来首次大范围、普惠式、直接性向群众发放真金白银，意义不容低估。                   其实，涨工资不局限于直接增收，减负本身也是增收。

H |                    提高农民的养老金、减轻中产的个税负担、推进学前教育免费……都可视为广义上的“涨工资”。                   只要收入能保持增长，每个人都有对于未来的增长预期，消费意愿的提升、生产-消费循环的畅通都不在话下。

I |                    从“投资于物”到“投资于人”，这场大变局才刚刚开始。

Current article:http://vcto.ningshunsaotuiqiao.shop/news/20260826_865293.html

Published on:05:35:03