Cumberland Advisors Market Commentary – Taxing Wealth Series

Cumberland Advisors has produced a number of market commentaries around the core theme of income, wealth inequality, and wealth taxation. In them you’ll find related data and implications of wealth tax proposals and their probable effect on markets, individuals, entrepreneurs, and businesses. Here are links to those recent writings in what forms a series of wealth tax pieces:

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Wealth Taxation Series

Wealth Tax,” David Kotok, October 9, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?” Bob Eisenbeis, February 13, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2,” Bob Eisenbeis, October 15, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income-2/

The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes,” David Kotok, October 25, 2019
https:/www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-the-kiplinger-tax-map-guide-to-state-income-taxes-state-sales-taxes-gas-taxes-sin-taxes/


Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.

Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries

Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.




Cumberland Advisors Market Commentary – The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes

We’re again returning to the complex subject of wealth taxation. Why? A number of readers have asked us for further details about it.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - The Kiplinger Tax Map

For example: isn’t real estate taxation a form of a wealth tax? And if the tax on your house is limited in deductions because of SALT, isn’t that a federal form of a hidden wealth tax? As readers can quickly see, this becomes complex quickly.

The following link takes you to a Kiplinger interactive breakdown of taxation in all 50 states. It is not just an income-tax-rate comparison. For example, you can see just how devastating the real estate property tax burden is in New Jersey. Readers may set up their own comparisons. We thank Kiplinger for offering this public service.

“State-by-State Guide to Taxes”
https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/taxes/T055-S001-kiplinger-tax-map/index.php

We are stressing this taxation issue for good reason. We believe a major change in American taxation may be coming soon if the next national election outcome alters the landscape.

Political forces suggest that the Democrats will retain their majority in the House. The Senate has become less certain and could flip to a Democratic, Schumer-led chamber if a backlash election places the White House in Democratic control.

The leading Democratic contenders have all outlined taxation plans, and every one raises income or wealth or capital gains or other forms of taxation. The political rhetoric attacks billionaires, but the actual proposed changes reach far below that threshold. Even socialist Bernie Sanders has a public wealth tax proposal that starts at $16 million.

As has been the case in previous American historical instances, tax rhetoric targets the very wealthy few while policy ends up taxing many. Remember, the Alternative Minimum Tax was initially aimed at just 200 taxpayers. By the time it was finally rolled out, it had grown into a distorted tax policy that impacted millions of middle-class working households.

The issue for investors is complex, since elections are hard to forecast a year in advance. A Trump re-election implies a continued McConnell-led Senate. Taxes are not likely to rise under that scenario, and wealth taxation would have little chance of passage.

A Warren- or Harris- or Sanders- or Biden-led White House, with Schumer replacing McConnell, is an almost certain recipe for higher income and cap-gains taxation, plus an attempt to repeal the SALT provision. Wealth and estate and trust taxation are more difficult to forecast now. One thing is sure: In a Schumer-led Senate with a Warren presidency, no likely tax changes will be pro-investor.

Markets are always trying to be forward-looking as they reprice risk. We have already seen that with investor aversion to the healthcare sector of the stock market, a reaction that we now believe is overdone. We like that sector and are overweight healthcare in our US stock market ETF accounts.

As for politics and taxation strategy, all of the candidates’ proposals need more detailed research and analysis as to their likely effects and possible unintended consequences. Remember that the tax policy of a specific candidate can survive even if the candidate doesn’t.

A trillion-dollar Trump Administration federal deficit, in combination with many states being in various degrees of financial trouble, warns of much higher taxation, with complex new forms of taxation piled on top of the existing ones.

The implications for markets are many, and some markets are showing nervousness. We advise all readers to commence early planning with their lawyers or accountants or tax advisers. We could be facing huge changes or no changes or something in between. The time to flee a tsunami is before it hits. Then hope a washout doesn’t occur.

David R. Kotok
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Email | Bio


Here are links to our recent writings on the subject of Wealth Taxation.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Wealth Taxation Series

Wealth Tax,” David Kotok, October 9, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?” Bob Eisenbeis, February 13, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2,” Bob Eisenbeis, October 15, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income-2/

The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes,” David Kotok, October 25, 2019
https:/www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-the-kiplinger-tax-map-guide-to-state-income-taxes-state-sales-taxes-gas-taxes-sin-taxes/


Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.

Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries

Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.




Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2

As a follow-up to David Kotok’s piece last week on taxing wealth (https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/), it may be useful to remind readers what the potential incentive effects might be when it comes to the implications of wealth tax proposals to tax wealth may have on entrepreneurs and business structures. Proponents of a wealth tax are motivated by the need to finance what is now a growing federal deficit as well as to address what is perceived to be a problem with growing wealth inequality in today’s economy.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Taxing Wealth Instead of Income

Two of the proposals that are more easy to understand and calibrate are those put forward by Senators Bernie Sanders (https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/) and Elizabeth Warren (https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax). The Sanders proposal contains a progressive tax with a maximum of 8% on net worth over $10 billion, declining gradually to 2% for families with net worth between $50 and $250 million. The Warren proposal is less progressive, with a 2% tax for households with net worth between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion. While the plans seem quite different, we can plot what might happen over time to the net worth of households that started with $10 billion of net worth. The chart below shows the path for net worth under both plans over the most relevant range.[1]

The Sanders’ plan would halve net worth in about 11 years while the Warren plan would halve net worth in about 23 years. It is important to recognize that these are maximum-impact cases, since the analysis ignores any investment returns or other sources of growth in the value of wealth. If the household could earn at least enough on its asset holdings to more than cover the cost of the tax, for example, then effectively the net-worth tax proposals would amount to capping net worth at whatever the current levels were. In the Sanders proposal, for example, an individual with at least $10 billion in net worth would have to earn a bit more than the marginal 8% tax rate. In Warren’s proposal, the household would only have to earn a bit more than 3%.[2] So while the proposed net-worth taxes would generate revenue to support the government, they would do little to address concerns that many have about wealth inequality which would have to depend solely on increasing the wealth of those not subject to the taxes.

Implementation of such programs could, however, have significant implications for how people manage their wealth. In a previous commentary, I noted how the composition of wealth varies over different classes of net worth. The most recent data available are from the Federal Reserve’s 2016 survey of consumer finances, shown in the following chart.

For those with net worth over $1 billion, which is really the target group for the wealth-tax proposals, I noted that “more than two thirds of the wealth of the $1-billion-dollar-net-worth cohort is composed of what are termed ‘business interests.’ The Survey of Consumer Finances divides business interests into those businesses in which the owner has an active management role and those in which the owner does not play an active role, and well over 90% of such business interests involve active management. Thus, those who wish to tax wealth rather than yearly income are, in fact, targeting mainly privately held businesses whose value is derived from the active entrepreneurial involvement of the principal and his or her family.[3] Such assets are hard to identify, since they can include loan guarantees, intellectual property, etc. Those business interests are not frequently traded and are extremely hard to value. These are the same business interests that generate employment and benefits to many others.”[4] But capping net worth effectively caps the value of household business interests, and this cap has implications for how such businesses can grow and increase their capital as well as their risk taking incentives. If the effect is to stifle growth and employment, then the unintended consequences might well be detrimental to the economy going forward. If the effect to promote excessive risk taking, then the stability of the economy may be at risk.

In Sanders’ case, it is estimated that the proposal would impact about 180,000 households, and the IRS would be tasked with the job of valuing the net worth of those households each year. This would seem to be a very difficult and costly bureaucratic process to undertake, and one can imagine the disputes over values that would accompany implementation of the wealth tax. In short, proponents of a wealth tax need to delve a bit deeper into the likely first- and second-round implications of their proposals, which may not be quite as simple as they are represented.

Robert Eisenbeis, PH.D.
Vice Chairman & Chief Monetary Economist
Email | Bio

[1] One can easily calculate from this chart how many years it would take to reduce net worth by one half, from, say, $4 billion to $2 billion, under either plan.
[2] Of course, as the marginal net-worth tax rate declined, the earnings requirement would be reduced.
[3] See for example “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to 2007: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B. Kennickell, Traci L. Mach, and Kevin B. Moore, revised 2009, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 95, 2009, https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/articles/scf/default.htm.

 


Here are links to our recent writings on the subject of Wealth Taxation.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Wealth Taxation Series

Wealth Tax,” David Kotok, October 9, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?” Bob Eisenbeis, February 13, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2,” Bob Eisenbeis, October 15, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income-2/

The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes,” David Kotok, October 25, 2019
https:/www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-the-kiplinger-tax-map-guide-to-state-income-taxes-state-sales-taxes-gas-taxes-sin-taxes/


Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.

Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries

Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.




Cumberland Advisors Market Commentary – Wealth Tax

Democratic presidential candidates Castro, Sanders, and Warren have explicitly sponsored wealth taxation.

Wealth Tax

Readers may view the candidates’ proposals at their campaign websites:

Castro: https://issues.juliancastro.com/working-families-first/

Sanders: https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/

Warren: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax

A New York Times article published last week considers the economic implications of both Sanders’ and Warren’s proposals: “Democrats’ Plans to Tax Wealth Would Reshape the U.S. Economy” (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/sanders-warren-wealth-tax.html).

Here are some of our bullets.

1. Is there a workable system to rank wealth for progressive wealth taxation? Remember that a progressive taxation system needs breakpoints and thresholds. Here is a Bloomberg Businessweek article on this subject, titled “Everyone has a wealth number. What’s yours?” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/everyone-has-a-wealth-number-what-s-yours

2. Will charities be included? My colleague Matt McAleer and I have discussed the billions a year in American philanthropy that might disappear under a “billionaire tax scheme.” Bill and Melinda Gates are a prominent example of philanthropists who would have less to give.

3. If charity is exempt from wealth taxation, the exemption rules invite evasive behavior and investment changes. If charity is included, other changes will occur. A key point is that static analysis of these tax schemes is likely to be wrong as to the magnitude of results. Estimates from political candidates are likely to be heavily biased. The same is true for estimates from incumbents.

4. Can you equate a wealth tax to an income tax? Yes. With a few assumptions. Here’s an example using Sanders’ lowest bracket. The Wall Street Journal offers a synopsis of Sanders’s plan:

“The tax would apply to married couples with net worth of at least $32 million and individuals with net worth of at least $16 million. The rate would start at 1% per year and rise to 8% for married couples with assets of least $10 billion. That 8% rate would mean that megabillionaires who don’t earn at least an 8% return would see their fortunes shrink, and Mr. Sanders said Tuesday that there should be no billionaires.” (“Bernie Sanders Calls for 8% Wealth Tax on Richest Americans,” https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-calls-for-8-wealth-tax-on-richest-americans-11569334693)

Let’s take the lowest threshold, $16 million number at 1%. If it includes real estate, pensions, or charity, it is an annual tax on the appreciation of earnings. If it exempts these assets, it favors reallocation to them from assets that are taxed.

What about tax-free bonds? If exempt from wealth taxation, their value just went up on a relative basis. If taxation is applied, the current 3% yield just got reduced to 2%. Most of the $4 trillion of American’s municipal bonds are held by folks who would be taxed by Bernie Sanders. And most of those people are not “billionaires.”

Wealth taxation risk is creeping upward as the political season progresses. Trump’s behavior has invited impeachment investigation proceedings, which now have Speaker Pelosi’s sponsorship. The politics may have weakened Trump. That means more scrutiny of Democratic proposals is now called for. The Trump attacks on Biden seem to be strengthening Sanders and particularly Warren. Biden has not engaged in the type of wealth taxation rhetoric originated by Sanders and Warren.

The evolution of wealth taxation is one of those proposed changes that seems to generate increasing competition for candidates to outbid each other. They all attack “billionaires.” But to raise substantial money for spending programs or deficit reduction, the income thresholds must be much lower than “billionaire”.

Sanders has defined the lowest level as $16 million. That is a long way from a billion, as the Bloomberg article shows. America’s history of new taxation forms suggests that any new taxation scheme would start with a smaller group of taxpayers and end up broader over time.

So exactly what would be subject to the wealth tax? We think the tax-free municipal bond would be exempt under a wealth tax. Attacks on municipal bonds have been unsuccessful in the past, starting with Senator Bob Packwood’s attempt launched decades ago. Remember that there are 90000 distinct issuers of municipal bonds. Thus a wealth taxation scheme poses an indirect way to tax every school district, hospital, airport, sewer plant, etc.

We’re uncertain about retirement plans or charitable funds or closely held or private businesses or about art or other collections of personal items. They are certainly targeted by some of the proposals.

We’re fairly certain that traditional investments like stocks and real estate would be taxed. We shall see the “devils” emerge in the details as time passes.

Wealth taxation is on the political debate agenda. We expect this debate to intensify as political forces in both parties use “class warfare” language in the debate. Stay tuned.

David R. Kotok
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Email | Bio


Here are links to our recent writings on the subject of Wealth Taxation.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Wealth Taxation Series

Wealth Tax,” David Kotok, October 9, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?” Bob Eisenbeis, February 13, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2,” Bob Eisenbeis, October 15, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income-2/

The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes,” David Kotok, October 25, 2019
https:/www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-the-kiplinger-tax-map-guide-to-state-income-taxes-state-sales-taxes-gas-taxes-sin-taxes/


Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.

Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries

Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.




Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?

With the desire to finance both an increasing deficit and an increase in government services, politicians are searching far and wide for funds. Increasingly, proposals are surfacing to tax wealth rather than income as the means to fund pet projects. The proposals attract followers since unequal distribution of wealth is viewed as a problem that needs to be addressed. However, we really need to think through the implications of going down this road.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Taxing Wealth Instead of Income

First, it is important to understand the distinction between income – a flow of money from work and investments – and wealth – an accumulation of assets, things that we have. We all know that we can borrow to fund our acquisition of things, which then have to be financed out of current income. Most recent proposals therefore have actually focused on taxing net worth- reflecting the difference between what we owe and what we have.

While it is easy to refer to wealth in the abstract, it is important to recognize the wide range of assets that constitute our wealth. These include our homes, cars, financial assets, clothes, vacation homes, yachts, intellectual property rights, patents, etc. Some of these are easily valued while others are more problematic. One of the most recent wealth tax proposals would tax net worth over $10 million at 2% and net worth over $1 billion at 3%.

One of the interesting points about the wealth tax is that it taxes net worth – our things – each year, whereas an income tax is based on our current year’s income. Here is an interesting thought experiment. Suppose you have $1 billion, and it is taxed 3% every year. In 10 years, assuming the principal was not invested, you would have slightly less than $750 million remaining, and in 20 years you would have about $540 million. So, in effect, the government is saying that you have too much stuff and they are going to take it. In the extreme, this is not really different from the government saying that you have too many cars or that your house is too big and therefore you must let someone use one of your cars or one or two of your rooms at your expense.

More seriously, it is interesting to look at how the composition of wealth differs over classes of different net worth. The Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances contains information that allows us to get a better picture of how the distribution of stuff differs across different wealth cohorts. For the lower tiers, real estate, autos, retirement funds, and liquid assets comprise the bulk of net worth. At the other extreme, for those with a net worth in excess of $1 billion, the target cohort for the net worth tax, those same assets are a minuscule portion of their net worth (See Chart, “What Assets Make Up Wealth?” at https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/).

More than two thirds of the wealth of the $1-billion-dollar-net-worth cohort is composed of what is termed “business interests.” The Survey of Consumer Finances divides “business interests” into those business interests in which the owner has an active management role and those in which the owner does not play an active role and well over 90% of such business interests constitute active management. Thus those who wish to tax wealth rather than yearly income are, in fact, targeting mainly privately held business interests whose value is derived from the active entrepreneurial involvement of the principal and his or her family (1). Such assets are hard to identify, since they can include loan guarantees, intellectual property, etc. Those business interests are not frequently traded and are extremely hard to value. These are the same business interests that generate employment and benefits to many others. To implement a tax that serially requires a potential long-term expropriation of and monetization of productive businesses activities in the name of funding other social objectives requires very careful review and analysis of the costs and benefits.

The same survey also shows that one of the main determinants of wealth is education, and the returns are greatest to a college education (2). To be sure, we have recently heard about the problems of excessive student debt, and a recent Wall Street Journal article convincingly shows that students who attend but don’t finish college can be even worse off than those who don’t have a college degree (3). However, that same article also shows that unemployment rates are lower among college graduates and those with some college than for those with no college, and earnings show a similar pattern.

We need to remember that our Declaration of Independence promotes the “pursuit of happiness,” which has come to mean equal opportunity, not equal incomes or equal wealth. Given the evidence on education and wellbeing, we need to consider whether the key to dealing with the so-called problems of income and wealth inequality may be education and not government redistribution policies. Maybe we should focus on programs to raise those on the bottom while taking advantage of the often philanthropic tendencies of people with large accumulations of wealth. Perhaps we should consider policies, as just one example, that reduce inheritance taxes if a wealthy individual donated some of his or her wealth in advance of passing, provided that the gifts are to support qualified educational initiatives and keeping people in college who otherwise might be forced to drop out. This provides a carrot and opportunity for a wealthy individual to do good and avoids government expropriation with no guarantees that the funds will be used to address a social problem.

Robert Eisenbeis, PH.D.
Vice Chairman & Chief Monetary Economist
Email | Bio


Sources:

  1. “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2004 to 2007: “Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B. Kennickell, Traci L. Mach, and Kevin B. Moore, revised 2009, Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 95, 2009, https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2009/articles/scf/default.htm.
  2.   Ibid.
  3.   https://www.wsj.com/graphics/calculating-risk-of-college/

Here are links to our recent writings on the subject of Wealth Taxation.

Market Commentary - Cumberland Advisors - Wealth Taxation Series

Wealth Tax,” David Kotok, October 9, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-wealth-tax/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income?” Bob Eisenbeis, February 13, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income/

Taxing Wealth Instead of Income, Part 2,” Bob Eisenbeis, October 15, 2019
https://www.cumber.com/taxing-wealth-instead-of-income-2/

The Kiplinger Tax Map: Guide to State Income Taxes, State Sales Taxes, Gas Taxes, Sin Taxes,” David Kotok, October 25, 2019
https:/www.cumber.com/cumberland-advisors-market-commentary-the-kiplinger-tax-map-guide-to-state-income-taxes-state-sales-taxes-gas-taxes-sin-taxes/


Links to other websites or electronic media controlled or offered by Third-Parties (non-affiliates of Cumberland Advisors) are provided only as a reference and courtesy to our users. Cumberland Advisors has no control over such websites, does not recommend or endorse any opinions, ideas, products, information, or content of such sites, and makes no warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of their content. Cumberland Advisors hereby disclaims liability for any information, materials, products or services posted or offered at any of the Third-Party websites. The Third-Party may have a privacy and/or security policy different from that of Cumberland Advisors. Therefore, please refer to the specific privacy and security policies of the Third-Party when accessing their websites.

Sign up for our FREE Cumberland Market Commentaries

Cumberland Advisors Market Commentaries offer insights and analysis on upcoming, important economic issues that potentially impact global financial markets. Our team shares their thinking on global economic developments, market news and other factors that often influence investment opportunities and strategies.