Federal Budget Deficit Drops Below $1 TRILLION for the First Time During the Obama Presidency

The U.S. federal budget deficit dropped below the $1 TRILLION mark for the first time during the Obama Presidency.  Many politicians, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were quick to herald this "incredible accomplishment."  After all, the President has been busy claiming that he's reduced the deficit at the fastest rate in 60 years.  Naturally, he forgot to mention that his administration also INCREASED deficits at the fastest rate in 60 years.

While a $680 BILLION deficit may seem a major accomplishment, it represents 4.1% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).  Prior to the Obama Presidency, the last time the U.S. budget deficit was this high was 1992 during the last year of the George H.W. ("read my lips") Bush Presidency.  Borrowing was approximately $1.85 BILLION for each and every day of the fiscal year.

See also ...

The Rest of the Story Behind President Obama's Deficit Claim and PolitiFact's "Fact Checking"

Predictable: Treasury Department Adds Record Debt the Day after Congress Eliminated Debt Ceiling

Senator Obama Calls President Obama "A Leadership Failure"

Remember back in 2006 when President Obama spoke like a member of the Tea Party (the Tea Party hadn't been created yet)?

As the United States Congress and the President once again discuss raising the debt ceiling, it's good to ponder the words from then-Senator Barack Obama to the Senate on 16 March 2006. Back then, our official public debt was just $8.6 TRILLION.  It currently stands near $17 TRILLION, much of that increase under President Obama's reign.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

The Rest of the Story Behind President Obama's Deficit Claim and PolitiFact's "Fact Checking"

In a speech at Knox College in Illinois on July 24, 2013, President Obama said ...

"... our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years."

The fact-checking website PolitiFact even rated this claim as true.  However, PolitiFact fails to put this claim and their "true" rating into proper context.  It is much like saying that it is true that the Nazis did good things, as some still claim, while ignoring the big picture of their atrocities and mass murder.

It is indeed true that "our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years," as shown in the following figure (click to enlarge).  According to the PolitiFact article, the White House makes this claim using a four-year change in the deficit as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product, as shown in this chart.  However, what both President Obama and PolitiFact fail to mention is that while "our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years," this comes after increasing our deficits at the fastest rate since we won World War II after defeating the Nazis and the Japanese Empire.  The deficit reduction is laudable, but it also comes as a result of the prior massive deficits.  Some of the deficit spending during President Obama's first term can be attributed to Bush-era spending, under a Democrat-controlled Congress, including seizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, TARP, and the initial auto bailouts. Additional spending happened under the Obama Administration, again with the Democrat-controlled Congress, including the $787 billion Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, buying General Motors, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and increased welfare, food stamps, and disability benefits.

Let's look at this same information in another manner.  The following chart shows the annual budget surplus or deficit (mostly deficits) as measured as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).  The bars are color-coded by political party of the President (red for Republican, blue for Democrat) and the Presidents are listed at the top.  As you can see, it is technically true that we are currently reducing our deficits at their fastest pace in 60 years, but only because we ran massive deficits in excess of $1 TRILLION for four years from 2009 through 2012.  Although the 2013 fiscal year isn't yet complete, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecasts a smaller annual budget deficit of $759 billion, which helps bolster the President's claim.  However, as a percentage of GDP, this "greatly reduced" deficit still exceeds the largest deficit from President George H. W. Bush in 1992--twenty years earlier.  Part of the reason for the for the smaller budget deficit is the controversial sequestration process that enforces across-the-board budget reductions in spending growth.

Our Rating

We rate the President's claim as "technically true but misleading."  The President is making claims that omit the full context for his claims.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that we've found President Obama's claims to be factually correct but misleading.  He, or somebody on his staff, is apparently a fan of the classic book, How to Lie with Statistics.  For another example, see President Obama's claims "... that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”.  Based on Ho's actions, however, Ho apparently read a cheap knock-off translation of these works.

See also ...

• Digging Deeper Into President Obama's Manufacturing Jobs Claim
• What Does the Obama Job Chart Really Mean?

Misconceptions

We received the following tweet that originally alerted us to President Obama's deficit claim. Unfortunately, many of the President's supporters do not actually understand what the President claimed.

The United States government, in no way, shape, or form is the "smallest government in 50 years." The Twitterer is potentially mistaking a claim that we have the lowest percentage of people employed by the government in 45 years. Likewise, the President has not "reduced debt faster than any other President in history."  The President's claim is about deficit reduction, not debt reduction.  Here's a quick tutorial on the difference between deficit and debt, courtesy of the United States Treasury.

In order to have actual debt reduction, we must first run a budget surplus ... and we're in no danger of doing that any time soon.  However, based on changes to policy, it is possible to reduce the forecasted future debt while currently running a deficit.

The President's claim also covers the last 60 years (actually, 64-65 years), not all of U.S. history. There were much bigger improvements to deficits immediately following the end of World War II.

Sorry, we don't "Ignorant much" around these parts.

Methods

According to PolitiFact, the Obama Administration makes this claim using the annual budget deficit measured as a percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).  They then measure the difference over a four-year time frame (YEAR(n) - YEAR(n-4).  The deficit as a percentage of GDP data is available directly from the White House web site as Table 1.2.  Use the field "Surplus or Deficit" under "Total".  We used the mid-year updated figures from the White House for 2013, which is not included in Table 1.2.  The updated values are -4.7% and $795 billion, which are to the benefit of the President's claim.

Data Sources

White House: Office of Management and Budget: Historical Tables

Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2018 (Total Surplus or Deficit as a Percentage of U.S. GDP)
Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2018 (Total Surplus or Deficit in Current Dollars)
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

Wall Street Journal: White House Sees Smaller Budget Deficit in 2013 (Lower, revised 2013 deficit numbers based on mid-year update)

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323368704578594020152453486.html

PolitiFact: Obama says deficit is falling at the fastest rate in 60 years
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/25/barack-obama/obama-says-deficit-falling-fastest-rate-60-years

FactCheck.org: Deficits Falling (From Way Up)
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/deficits-falling-from-way-up/

What the President Said and What He Should Have Said

During his 2013 Inauguration speech, President Obama sounded a clear warning on the possible dangers of climate change.

"We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms."

It's funny how the President can be so focused on the possible dangers of climate change, yet apparently so incredibly blind to obvious threats posed by massive overspending and deficits created by the federal government--a significant chuck added under his own supposed "leadership."  A bankrupt federal government will have ZERO hope of influencing environmental policy.

Here's what President Obama should have said.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of massive federal government indebtedness and overspending, knowing that the failure to acts betrays our children and future generations of Americans.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of basic economics, but none can avoid the devastating impact of annual trillion dollar deficits, an unsustainably-expensive social safety net, and large increases in inflation if we continue to borrow heavily from the Federal Reserve Bank.  Massive indebtedness, unless for an investment that will provide gain, is merely just postponed poverty. 

As a side note, here's a snippet from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees' Report, signed by three Obama Administration cabinet officials.

Projected long-range costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing and will require legislative action to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers act sooner rather than later, they can consider more options and more time will be available to phase in the changes, giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action would also help avoid adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people dependent on program benefits.

California Proposition 30: Governor Jerry Brown's Big-Government Tax Hike

California Governor Jerry Brown, in partnership with public-sector unions such as the California Teachers Association (CTA), the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) proposes big tax hikes on a small number of Californians in order to close a multi-billion dollar budget hole.  Despite the budget hole, threats to public safety, and threats to close public schools for weeks, the California Legislature continues to block prudent comprehensive public-pension reforms, to fund tuition benefits for children of undocumented workers, and to fund a not-so-"high-speed" rail line between Merced and Bakersfield.  The California Legislature has NO SPENDING PRIORITIES.

The latest incarnation of the Governor's plan will appear on the November 2012 ballot in California as Proposition 30.

California already has some of the highest state taxes in the United States.  Those earning over $48,000 incur a 9.3% state tax rate--California's second-highest rate, which by itself is already the fourth highest in the nation even without any tax hikes.  Only the top tax rates in Hawaii, California, and Oregon are higher.

If passed, Proposition 30 would burden California the nation’s first, second, third, and fifth highest marginal state tax rates!  The following chart compares California's current state income tax rates and proposed increases against the highest income tax rates in other states.  Billed by the Governor and his allies as a "temporary" tax hike, these rates would be in effect for seven years.  The income tax increases fall exclusively on the top 2-3% of taxpayers who already pay roughly half (or more) of California's entire tax bill.

In order to appear "fair" and "broad-based", Proposition 30 also increases California’s state sales tax, already the nation’s highest. The following chart compares California’s state sales tax rate to the other 49 states.

Despite all of Governor Brown's talk of tax fairness, Proposition 30 circumvents the Legislature’s 2/3rd requirement to raise taxes. In fact, Proposition 30 is “electioneered” by Governor Jerry Brown and his allies to only require a simple majority to pass. Proposition 30 asks the 50% of California voters--who pay little or no state income tax--to pass a big tax increase on the top 2-3% of California taxpayers, who already pay roughly 50% of ALL state income taxes. Proposition 30 is an abuse of the so-called “democratic process”, especially for so-called Democrats. Is this what “democracy” looks like?

Proposition 30 asks California voters for a four-year, 0.25% rate increase to the state sales tax, which equates to a 3.4% rate increase. The sales tax hike applies to ALL Californians. Proposition 30 also asks voters for a seven-year increase on only the top 2-3% of income taxpayers.  This equates to a 9.7% to 24.4% rate increase for the taxpayers who ALREADY pay the highest effective tax rate and roughly 50% of all state income tax.

In 2009, the average tax liability for every California taxpayer was about $2,655.  However, averages usually hide some important details.  For example, the average human being has one testicle and one ovary.  The bottom 50% of taxpayers (and possible voters) pays between $0 and $500 in TOTAL California income tax.  Meanwhile, Governor Brown's tax increase targets the top 2-3% of taxpayers who earn $250,000 or more ever year, despite that they ALREADY pay the highest effective tax rates.  These taxpayers also already pay between $9,000 and $1.3 million.

The primary reason that California income tax revenues collapsed during the financial crisis is that INCOMES collapsed for ALL Californians, but especially for those at the top. The following chart shows the incomes and income taxes collected in 2007 (before the financial crash) and in 2009 (after the financial crash).  Why the big swings in income and taxes for those making over $1 million?  Unlike the federal tax system, California treats capital gains exactly like ordinary earned income.  The California Legislature loves all the extra revenue generated from stock market and real estate gains.  Unfortunately, this over-reliance means huge decreases during market crashes.  The subprime crisis causes simultaneous crashes is BOTH real estate and on Wall Street.  The California Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) has long recognized this problem as a cause for California's revenue volatility.

Despite that top taxpayers still  pay the highest marginal tax rates, Proposition 30 wants to increase those rates even more, leaving California even MORE VULNERABLE to future market swings. 

California ALREADY suffers from its high taxation. The result is that California suffers from a poor business tax climate that drives away jobs and causes are above-average unemployment.  Many Democrats within the California government refuse to believe that high taxes have any effect on California's economy, despite ample evidence to the contrary.  Why have California's tax revenues dropped?  It is NOT because tax rates are too low.  The fundamental problem is that California's private-sector economy is stagnating while government expenditures have increased.  Simply raising taxes, even if it is limited to the top 2-3%, will NOT fix what ails California.

California currently has the nation’s 3rd-worst unemployment rate, beating out only Rhode Island and Nevada.

Naturally, the public-employee unions are bankrolling Proposition 30 and have spent over $31.6 MILLION as of November 3, 2012.

Many of these groups are also recognized as the biggest spenders in California politics, according to a March 2010 report by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.  The California Teachers Association (CTA) has spent $10.7 MILLION on Proposition 30 so far and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has spent over $11.1 MILLION as of 11/3/2012.  The spending will likely be even higher by the time the election is over.

What kind of access does that kind of money buy? Just ask California Governor Jerry Brown, who has private town-hall meetings with California's public-sector unions.  Even career Democrats such as Willie Brown (no relation)--California's longest-serving Assembly Speaker and former Mayor of San Francisco--recognize that Governor Brown is a prisoner of the teachers unions. These are the same unions that are bankrolling his tax hike and likely will be out campaigning for it before November.

Meanwhile, the amount of money that the State of California spends continues to grow.  State spending is up 23% since 2000, even accounting for inflation.

Political columnist Dan Walters asks some very good questions about Proposition 30.

Why should we pay more ...

• when we already have one of the nation's highest tax burdens,

• when the Legislature is handing out raises to its staff,

• when politicians haven't curbed rapidly increasing pension costs,

• when they're wasting billions on prisons, 

• when they've shunned a spending limit,

• when they've squandered money on a hapless bullet train project and unworkable computer systems, 

• when they're spending tens of millions on illegal immigrants' college educations, and 

• most importantly – when the state is mired in recession and 2 million-plus are jobless?

Fellow Californians, I urge you to VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 30!  It's bad tax policy and an abuse of the democratic system.

See also ...

• California Secretary of State: Text of Proposition 30
  http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i1057_12-0009_governors_initiative_v3.pdf
• California Legislative Analysts Office: Proposition 30
  http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2012/120208.aspx
• MapLight.org: California Proposition 30
  http://votersedge.org/california/ballot-measures/2012/november/prop-30/funding
  
• KCET: Prop 30 Cheat Sheet: Jerry Brown's Tax Measure
  www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/prop-30-cheat-sheet-jerry-browns-tax-to.html
• KCET: Who's Funding Prop 30, Jerry Brown's Temporary Tax for Education and Guaranteed Public Safety Funding?
  www.kcet.org/news/ballotbrief/elections2012/propositions/database-whos-funding-prop-30-temporary-tax-to-fund-education.html
• Ballotpedia: California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)
  www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)
• California Secretary of State: Political Committees to Support or Oppose Proposition 30
  http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1346100&session=2011
• Election Track: Californians Working Together To Restore And Protect Public Schools, Universities And Public Safety
  www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1346049
• Election Track: Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown
  www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1343257
• Election Track: Reclaim California's Future - Yes On Prop. 30
  www.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1347688
• Election Track: Educators And Working Families To Restore California, A Coalition Of Educators, Community Groups, And Grassroots Organizationswww.electiontrack.com/lookup.php?committee=1344079
• Dan Walters: "Censorship rears its ugly head in California Senate"
  www.sacbee.com/2012/08/10/4712081/dan-walters-censorship-rears-its.html
• Sacramento Bee:  "Viewpoints:  Prop. 30 will hurt state's economic prospects"
  http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/06/4885977/viewpoints-prop-30-would-hurt.html
• Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Kevin Korenthal: Prop 32, not 30, deserves your vote"
  http://www.the-signal.com/section/33/article/77367/
• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Prop. 30 neither honest nor transparent" http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_21814545/harold-griffith-prop-30-neither-honest-nor-transparent
• Daily Titan: "Prop 30 can't save California from debt" http://www.dailytitan.com/2012/10/prop-30-cant-save-california-from-debt
• CATO: "86ing the Arguments for California Props 30, 38"
  http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/86ing-the-arguments-for-california-props-30-38
• BLOG: "Was the California Senate Censorship of Proposition 30 Intentional? You Decide!"
  http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/08/as-reported-in-sacramento-bee-democrat.html
• BLOG: "The Hollywood and Media Hypocrisy on California Proposition 30 and Possible Media Bias"
  http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/08/prop30mediabiasquestions.html
• BLOG: Proposition 30 "Trigger Cuts" Threat Add Up to a Whole Lot of Nothing http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2012/10/proposition-30-trigger-cuts-add-up-to.html

Useful Information for Under-taxed Individuals

Despite ample evidence (here, here, and here) that wealthier taxpayers already pay the bulk of U.S. taxes, a number of supposedly wealthy commentators and bloggers believe that they are under-taxed and should be forced to pay more taxes. I say, why wait for Congress to take action? If you truly believe that the government is the best and most-prudent investment of your hard-earned income, you can make additional voluntary contributions now.

1. Decide not to declare any deductions and not take any exemptions or credits on your federal income tax return. This will immediately boost your adjusted gross income (AGI) and increase the amount of taxes owed. For example, if you have a large mortgage on your home, do not take the deduction allowed on mortgage interest. Do not write off other taxes that you might have already paid. WARNING: Your accountant may question your sanity.

2. Give directly to the United States Government. Here's how, courtesy of the United States Treasury web site. Okay, in full disclosure, you are not actually paying additional income tax but you are helping to reduce the tremendous $13 TRILLION+ national debt, which reduces current and future interest payments paid by the government. Reducing interest payments frees those funds so that the government can spend on other programs.

How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

1. You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
   
2. You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept GBureau of the Public DebtP. O. Box 2188Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Alternatively, you can provide your money as a gift to the United States Government.

Gifts to the United States Government

How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue Service at (800) 829-1040.

If you do decide to donate or provide a gift to the United States Government, please let me know via the comment section or send me an E-mail. Any donation larger than $250 will receive a personal "Thank You!" from me, another average citizen. Also, please let me know if you would like your name added to the Honor Roll below.

HONOR ROLL

[updated 3-AUGUST-2011]

The following individuals have contributed $250 or more to reduce the national debt and to help reduce the cost burden of the United States Government for all Americans. On behalf of all Americans, you have our thanks and gratitude!

[NONE REPORTED TO DATE]

See Also ...

• "Who Pays Their "Fair Share' in California?"
  
• http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/10/who-pays-their-fair-share-in-california.html
  
• "Is Warren Buffett Paying His 'Fair Share'?"
  
• http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-warren-buffet-paying-his-fair-share.html
  
• "Pretty Pictures and a Political Rorschach Test: A History of the U.S. Income Tax System"
• http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2011/03/tax-infographic-is-political-rorschach.html
  
• "The Rich Don't Pay Taxes" Lie: Purposely Deceptive or Backed Up by Data?
  http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/02/rich-dont-pay-taxes-lie-purposely.html
  
• The Oppressive Progressive Income Tax: California Edition
  http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2009/07/oppressive-progressive-income-tax.html