Posted by Gurpreet Kaur.

CNN Money released an article on Well Fargo’s employees secretly withdrawing money from customers’ bank account and transferring to new accounts since 2011. The article was published on September 8th of this year and Wells Fargo bank was forced to fire 5,300 employees in Los Angles for setting up accounts for customers. This fraud was taking place without any of the customers’ knowledge. After this fraud, many customers were fumed because their bank accounts were unsafe. The employees’ fraud was unethical and illegal because they were creating credit card accounts without letting their customers know.

Brian Kennedy, a Maryland retiree, was one of the victims and he told CNN Money “he detected an unauthorized Wells Fargo account had been created in his name about a year ago. He asked Wells Fargo about it and the bank closed it.” Wells Fargo’s customers had trust in the bank. The victims of this fraud could have filed for refunds, but it wasn’t necessary because Wells Fargo agreed to refund 5 million dollars to them. The settlement in Los Angles required Wells Fargo to warn their California customers to shut down their unrecognized accounts. The fraud caused the bank to unemployed 5,300 workers over these five years.

Richard Cordray is the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and he said, “Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses.”  Those employees transferred funds from customers’ accounts without their knowledge to new accounts they created. Customers were upset because they were facing overdraft fees and insufficient fees. Wells Fargo stated, “We regret and take responsibility for any instances where customers may have received a product that they did not request.” Wells Fargo’s market valuation was the highest in America, but the fraud led to lawsuits against Wells Fargo. In May 2015, “Feuer’s office sued Wells Fargo for authorizing accounts” and “after filing the suit, his office received more than 1,000 calls and emails from customers as well as current and former Wells Fargo employees about the allegations.”

Gurpreet is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

Posted by He Yin.

Since the beginning of 2017, the combined market value of all encrypted currencies has risen from $17.7 billion to nearly $836 billion on January 5, 2018, more than 4,500% in more than a year. In such a short time, no investor has ever seen a significant appreciation of such an asset class.

China is often seen as one of the biggest battleground states in the secret revolution. Last summer, the Chinese government halted an initial public offering (essentially an initial public offering but used in digital currency) and announced that it would close the country’s cryptocurrency exchange.

Just recently, the Chinese government announced that it would track the facilities of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. On January 3rd, a press release issued by the central bank outlined a plan to limit the power supply of some bitcoin miners. Given that China is currently in the currency of mining occupies more than two-thirds of all the processing power of share, the move is an obvious for COINS community, and the evolution of the encryption currency is a whole.

Comment: China has been developing rapidly in the last forty years. Its economy is a well-functioning machine. As for Russia, however, it does not have as much. Its currency, the ruble, has been in turmoil more than once in the past few decades, and its dependence on oil has caused huge swings in its economic growth. So in theory, Russia appears to be the perfect candidate for the bitcoin revolution.

He is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

Link: https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/forget-china-this-country-has-become-the-most-intriguing-cryptocurrency-battleground

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

FIFA’s Audit and Compliance Committee head, Domenico Scala, said if evidence shows Russia and Qatar bought votes to have the World Cup hosted in their country, ‘the awards could be invalidated.’” This comes on the heels of U.S. federal indictments charging FIFA officials with racketeering, conspiracy, and corruption.

Russia and Qatar are not the subject of those indictments, but evidence may emerge from those proceedings about how they won the privilege of hosting the event.

The Justice Department charged fourteen people, including nine current or former FIFA figures and five sports marketing professionals, for allegedly “‘foster[ing] a culture of corruption and greed that created an uneven playing field for the biggest sport in the world,’” FBI Director James Comey said. The government alleged racketeering and corruption involving more than $150 million in bribes and kickbacks spanning two decades.

“The investigation grew out of allegations of payoffs to officials who decided where to hold the next two World Cups, the biggest international event in sports, that landed the games in Russia for 2018 and Qatar in 2022, according to three senior U.S. law enforcement officials. The U.S. was runner-up to Qatar’s win.”

FIFA appears to be relieved with the indictments. In a statement posted on its website, it said it “welcomes actions that can help contribute to rooting out any wrongdoing in football.”  FIFA further said, “We are pleased to see that the investigation is being energetically pursued for the good of football and believe that it will help reinforce measures that FIFA has already taken.”

The Clinton Foundation is under scrutiny for accepting money from FIFA and Qatar.  “In 2014, the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, set up by the Qatar government to ensure a successful FIFA world cup, awarded the Clinton Foundation between $250,000 and $500,000; the State of Qatar donated between $1 million and $5 million.”  According to the Clinton Foundation website, the money was for “research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world.”

Posted by Tiffany Zapata.

Sergei Pugachyov former banker, senator, and confidante to Valdimir Putin is now speaking out on his placement on Interpol’s most wanted list. According to Pugachov, he made the list because of a campaign created by elite Russian politicians against him. He is currently facing charges in Russia and the UK due to the 2010 collapse of the International Industrial Bank.

Pugachyov commented on Interpol’s activity, stating “Interpol’s involvement is illegal and he’ll explore ‘all avenues’ to fight to get his name removed.” He was listed on the international law enforcement agency’s roster and is being charged with counts of embezzlement, according to Interpol.

In attempts to prove his innocence, Pugachyov is trying to bring light to the situation and call-out Russian politicians. He stated: “The involvement of Interpol by the Russian authorities is an attempt to give credibility to the actions of high-level Russian officials involved in the expropriation, including direct orders of President Putin and a number of Russian cabinet ministers.”

He was subject to a red notice by Interpol but was able to cancel it by challenging it in court. He is determined and says he will do anything in his power to cancel the second notice as well.

Pugachyov was once known as one of the richest men in Russia. He now lives a bare life, stripped of all his assets and politically targeted in Russia due to the collapse of the bank in 2010. With the history of Russian governments, we can speculate this will not end well for Pugachyov.

Tiffany is a business administration major with a concentration in international business at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

Faris is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal

Posted by Anna Fintor.

Wells Fargo is currently involved in a legal scandal in which it is said to have opened bank accounts and credit cards without the costumer’s consent. According to Reuters, “The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other regulators ordered United States’ third-largest bank by assets to pay $190 million in fines and restitution to settle civil charges.” The scandal has been going on for several years and there were as many as 2 million accounts opened illegally.

Wells Fargo has been known for its “high-pressure” sales culture, which one of my personal friends who has worked in one of the branches can account for. The Bloomberg article I have read describes how anonymous users have been posting cartoonish videos on YouTube presenting the negative work atmosphere at Wells Fargo. The videos show how management pressured and threatened workers that if the unreasonable goals were not met the workers would be let go.  It is suspected that the videos were created by employees as far back as in 2010.

While reading the articles, I remembered one of the discussions from class of how in large corporations top executives can pressure the bottom level workers to commit the illegal activity. One of the YouTube videos shows that bankers received $5 McDonald’s gift cards for opening a new account, while the executives received generous bonuses. In my opinion that’s very unethical and just wrong.

In the recent weeks the CEO, Jhon Stumpf has resigned and Wells Fargo continues to be under investigation. I feel like this situation is going to hurt Wells Fargo not only financially but also create bad reputation. Due to the popularity of social media, the videos will spread to a vast number of the population, including to those who may not be keeping up with the news.

Anna is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargo

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-after-wells-fargon fines and restitution to settle civil charges

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-accounts-california-idUSKCN12J2O

Posted by Abigail Murphy.

A way to raise money, fund a project, or venture from a large number of people for a small startup in the earliest stage money sounds simple. Not so much. Every so often, there are crowdfunding campaigns gaining popularity via Facebook newsfeed, twitter feed, and emails. These campaigns come with issues of the right amount of regulation and increasing issue of inequality of funding portals.

After years of back and forth, in October 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. JOBS allowed startup companies to safely use the internet to offer securities to investors. Prior to 2012, the internet could not be used to match investors and startup ventures due to the “general solicitation rule.” In a short 6 years, the SEC has developed their stance that the internet as a matchmaker for investors and startups is solicitation to a lacking concern for the inequality of funding portals.

A funding portal is the basic platform for the fundraising to take place and act as an intermediary. Both the funding portal pursuant and the broker-dealer must be registered through the SEC, however rising inequality have expressed that regulation is not enough. Concerns are expressed due to argument of crowds vs. expert’s wisdom, including liability. Wisdom for a crowd verses one single investor is never going to be definitive, while a single expert’s wisdom could be too specific. In addition, some are urging the SEC to reevaluate the liability of both parties in a crowdfund due to the easy loophole of fraud. If experts are considered the investors of crowdfunding, do their duties violate under the 1940 Advisers Act? Is crowdfunding an indirect security? This act set grounds for investors to follow and a guideline for compensations, economic activity, and other indirect securities. If the experts end up being categorized as investors, then they too are responsible for any fraudulent financial activity.

Personally, I believe that the overturning of the 2012 JOBS solicitation rule and the 2015 implementation of Title III of JOBS is all still very new. There are no past comparisons of any type of money exchange and investment to base crowdfunding off of. As this topic gains popularity and a crowd does flock to crowdfunding, there will be a need for heavier regulations on the liabilities and registration to create an ethical and financially stable funding portal. I was surprised to read about such an open ended definition when it comes down to the investor vs expert responsibilities in relation to the Advisers Act in 1940. Crowdfunding is an innovative way and already has several fundraising success stories. Over the next few years it will be interesting to see the investor return reports. As long as the finances stay in line, and both the crowdfund pursuant and the investors stay happy I see no issue in allowing the internet to play a role in matchmaking.

Abigail is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Source:

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=nclr

Posted by Dalton Soffer.

Erin Andrews, a sportscaster who has worked for ESPN and currently for FOX, was recently awarded $55 million by a Nashville jury for her civil lawsuit against a Nashville, Tennessee hotel owner and her stalker Michael David Barrett. In 2008 Barrett used a hacksaw to tamper with Andrews’ peephole and secretly video taped her while she was undressed. The video was later released on the internet, and it turned in to a nightmare for Andrews. Her privacy was taken from her and she was publicly humiliated after the video surfaced. Andrews gave an emotional testimony and sent out an emotional post on twitter saying the support she has received throughout the whole process has helped her fight to hold those accountable for whose job it is to protect everyone’s security, safety, and privacy.

Andrews originally sought $75 million in her suit however the court settled for $20 million less than that. The jury found the stalker, Barrett, was 51% at fault and was ordered to pay out $28 million, while the West End Hotel Partners, which owns and operates that Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, was found to be 49 percent at fault and asked to pay out more than $26 million. The West End Hotel Partners has said that Barrett is solely responsible for his criminal actions.

In my opinion, I feel like the settlement amount was fair but I do not feel that it was properly divided between the guilty sides. Barrett was more at fault than 51%, I would say he was more like 75% at fault in this and should be ordered to pay more of the settlement.

Dalton is a business major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Yacheng Xu.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley “warned that investing in privately issued digital money such as bitcoin could end in big financial losses for those involved.” He opined, “There is a bit of a, I would say, speculative mania around cryptocurrencies in terms of their valuations, which I view as pretty dangerous, because I don’t really see what the actual true underlying value of some of these cryptocurrencies actually is in practice.”

The Fed’s vice chairman for supervision, Randal Quarles, said, “While these digital currencies may not pose major concerns at their current levels of use, more serious financial-stability issues may result if they achieve wide-scale usage.”

From my perspective, with the gaining popularity of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, more risks such as hacking and scandals will in crease.  Bitcoin proves to be a highly speculative asset. Nevertheless, the Fed failed to enforce any rules, and the SEC merely issued some warnings regarding Bitcoin and future ICOs. The cryptocurrency is basically free of government regulations, which easily can trigger an investment bubble, illegal fund-raising, and undermining the market economy. Hence, in China, the government has shut down the cryptocurrency exchanges in September, 2017 and prohibit new ICOs.

It is indisputable that the virtual money is a great way to avoid the control by a central bank. Given the pros and cons of cryptocurrency, we should have a compromise solution, allowing the existence of exchanges but setting regulations at the same time.

Yacheng is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-dudley-says-puerto-rico-has-difficult-recovery-process-ahead-of-it-1519311605?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=8

Posted by Masood Mohayya.

In Fall 2015, TaxSlayer, a web-based tax preparation service, fell victim to a data breach, specifically a credential-stuffing attack. Due to a security flaw, the cyber-attackers were able to gain access to almost 9000 TaxSlayer accounts, which provided them the highly-sensitive data (including social security numbers, bank accounts, and credit card information) belonging to TaxSlayer’s customers. TaxSlayer was not aware of this attack until January 2016, when a user complaint mentioned a compromised tax account. The discovery of this credential-stuffing attack resulted in a thorough investigation conducted by the FTC.

The FTC had determined that TaxSlayer failed to meet the standards set by the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA). Although the GBLA only applies to financial institutions, such as banks or investment advisors, the fact that TaxSlayer partakes in tax return activities made it subject to the GBLA. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to have a “comprehensive written security program”. Furthermore, they need to routinely monitor their cybersecurity programs, and “design and implement information safeguards” to control any risks or flaws identified during security assessments. Had TaxSlayer not violated these requirements, their network security risk could have been identified much sooner, and prevented the endangerment of thousands of customers’ information.

Moving forward, the FTC concluded that TaxSlayer must comply by the regulations set by the GBLA. Failure to do so would subject them to contempt risk. However, this incident opened larger doors for the FTC. One of their largest priorities is enforcing the importance of multi-factor authentication to access sensitive data for all companies, especially those not subject to the GBLA. They believe it is one of the most effective privacy protection tools, and can prevent countless cyberattacks. Although there are still no official legal mandates set in stone by the FTC, companies without robust network security put themselves at severe risk.

Masood is an IT management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Source:

https://biglawbusiness.com/cybersecurity-enforcers-wake-up-to-unauthorized-computer-access-via-credential-stuffing/

Posted by Pooja Patel.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Volkswagen for advertising a false claim that their vehicles are environmental friendly and “clean diesel.” Volkswagen is a German manufactured car company. The vehicles that are being affected with this law suit are 2009 through 2015 Volkswagen TDI diesel models of Jetta’s, Passat’s, and Touareg SUVs, also the TDI Audi models. The sale price for these affected vehicles ranges from the least expensive $22,000 Volkswagen to the most expensive $125,000 Audi model. Volkswagen advertised its “clean diesel” vehicles through major advertisement such as Super Bowl Ads, print ads, and of course social media advertisement.

Volkswagen claims their cars are “low-emission, environmentally friendly” and  “met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale value.” These claims are alleged to be false. Volkswagen claimed that their cars had low emission and it is “clean diesel.” This means the vehicle would produce low Nitrogen Oxide by 90 percent or less. Instead, the FTC complaint states that the vehicle produces up to 4,000 percent more that the legal limit. This is harmful and dangerous to the customers, since it can cause health problems as well as environmental problems. Also, Volkswagen claimed that they met the emission standards and also would maintain a high resale value, but these claims were also false. According to the FTC, Volkswagen has installed illegal software that helped it pass emission standards.

The chairwoman of FTC, Edith Ramirez, stated that “Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen’s deceptive and unfair practices.” Volkswagen is also looking at a potential of $20 billion-dollar fine for violating the clean air regulations. The lawsuit is still yet to be settled therefore; exact fines are not yet confirmed. But Volkswagen’s spokeswoman, Jeannine Ginivan, responded to this issue and said, “Our most important priority is to find a solution to the diesel emissions matter and earn back the trust of our customers and dealers as we build a better company.”

In my opinion, the actions Volkswagen took were definitely unethical; they were more concerned about gaining profits. They also put consumers’ lives at risk. I think the Federal Trade Commission did the right thing by suing the Volkswagen company.

Pooja is an accounting and finance major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Michael Larkin.

When one checks into a hotel, one would expect to have their information stored in a company’s database, but one would not expect that database to get compromised. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation was using a property management system that stored customer’s names, addresses, and credit card number. On three separate occasions in 2008 and 2009, Wyndham was hacked and this information was pulled off of over 600,000 accounts. Damage was approximately $10.6 million and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought Wyndham to trial.

Even though Wyndham was the company that got hacked, it was the customers who got hurt and that is why the FTC filed against Wyndham. The FTC argued that the hacks were caused due the very limited security that the management system used. It was found that the credit card numbers could easily be read, passwords were easy to guess, and a firewall was not deployed along with various other issues. Wyndham argued that the FTC had no right to file a suit against them and that the unfairness and deception claims were not sufficiently validated. It was founded that Wyndham didn’t provide a fair system for its customers and the court required the company to change in order to protect its customers. Mainly, Wyndham needs a more comprehensive security program in order to protect account information and also conduct annual information security audits and maintain a safeguard for its servers.

This case was a matter of protection and privacy for the company’s customers. A customer is providing personal information in order to engage in business so Wyndham has a duty to protect that information. Having a higher security will ensure that hackers will not be able to breach the system and steal information. The FTC won the trial, and in doing so, made sure that a company had a high security to protect the customers.

Michael is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp.

Verdict From: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/wyndham-settles-ftc-charges-it-unfairly-placed-consumers-payment

Donald Trump’s tax plan will make it more simple to pay the government. There are four tax rates under the plan: 25%, 20%, 10% and 0%, eliminating most deductions. The death tax will be eliminated.

According to the website, “The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money.”

Small business should see some relief. Under the new proposed law, all businesses will be paying the same rate. “No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.” A corporate inversion occurs when a U.S. company incorporates in another country to avoid paying high taxes here on income not earned in the U.S.