Because Larry Page and Sergey Brin were allowed to get filthy rich....

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, are now filthy rich.

They supposedly give a lot of their money to Democrat and (LOL) "progressive" causes.  I don't hold that against them. 

I think they deliberately lowered their Blogger/BlogSpot (their program that powers this site) search rankings so that conservative/libertarian voices will be muted.  I don't hold that against them any more. 

Their house, their rules. 

Because they were allowed to get filthy rich, my world is a better place.  I've taken on a new job in purchasing, and therefore I search the crap out of everything via Google.  Sheet metal.  ABS plastic.  Janitorial supplies.  1/4-20 hex cap bolts.  Extruded aluminum F-channel.  You name it, I'm looking for it, and Larry and Sergey help me out. 

Here's why I'm writing this.....   I got a weird-assed email from a Chinese vendor today, and it referenced some earlier conversation that was in Chinese. 

20 years ago, this would've been a huge problem.  I don't read Chinese very well.  But I just went to "Google Translate", copied and pasted, and there you have it.  It's not perfect, but it made sense.  Here's what I got, kinda sorta.  Mandarin Chinese is on the left, English is on the right.  What everyone wanted to say, but couldn't, is at the top:

 (Victor says that according to Allen Patterson, Frank is supposed to deal with Victor's next consignment shipment.  Allen thinks you can work it out.  This is probably Allen's way of dumping his responsibilities onto you.  Please let me know you got this and send a return receipt.  That way, the monkey is on your back.) 

Just as an FYI, Frank (who speaks perfectly good English because he's from Missouri) later said that Allen Patterson shouldn't dump this problem at Frank's door, and that Allen and Victor should work it out through other channels, namely, some other vendor. 

Larry and Sergey have done some good stuff.  They've made some wise decisions about which fields of online....."stuff"....(sorry, I'm very old) to invest in, and which stuff to avoid. 

But what if they'd been subject to FDR's "Undistributed Profits Tax"? 

This was a New Deal abortion that declared that if a big business didn't immediately plow its profits into dividends or wages, any profits could be taxed at up to 27%.  (This is a tax rate that most of us would now kill for, so please up it to around 75% to put it in perspective.) 

What if Larry's and Sergey's profits, every year, had been taxed at 75%?  Well, they would have hidden the money, unless they had something they could immediately pump it back into.  To hell with planning, to hell with putting some aside for a rainy day, and to hell with research and development.  It Google couldn't invest it in dividends or wages, Obama was going to get it to spend on the Democrat Vote Farm. 

What is Larry and Sergey were subject to the 90% tax rate that American Lefties always claim grew the Middle Class back in the 1950's ?  (Nobody paid 90%, by the way.  There were loopholes in the tax code.) 

What if they'd been required, at gunpoint, to "give something back"? 

What if Larry and Sergey had been forced to end "income inequality" by giving their money to Crack Whores?   

What if Larry's and Sergey's money had been used to fund Obama instead of Google Translate? 

I'd still be wondering what the hell Victor's email meant.  If there was such a thing as email. If there was such a thing as the internet (and no, politicians didn't invent it).  If there was such a thing as a computer.  If there was such a thing as a cell phone. 

The best way for us to get great stuff at a low price is to allow the Larrys and Sergeys to get filthy, stinkin' rich. 

Good for them.  And guys, thanks for inventing Google Translate.  Or to put it into Mandarin Chinese....

谢谢，Larry和Sergey，发明了谷歌翻译 

 

What did you want to be when you grew up?

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a cowboy. 

Then I went through a phase (when I had a Honda XR-75) where I wanted to be a professional daredevil/motorcyclist like Evel Knievel.

I had other friends who wanted to be professional athletes, farmers, or (occasionally) marijuana distributors. 

One really close friend wanted to be a lawyer.  He's now in jail for mortgage fraud. 

The girls I knew wanted to be nurses, teachers, or mothers. 

But I don't think I knew a single person who grew up wanting to be a household slave.  And if you live in the USA, that's what you're going to be until sometime around April 18th. 

April 18th will be the day you can stop working for Barack, Boehner, Bush and Co. and start working for yourself.  It's called "Tax Freedom Day", and occurs later and later every year. 

You might think that you're working from January 1 through April 18th for the good of society.  Seriously? 

Do you think Cash For Clunkers, TARP, or Porkulus were for the good of "society"?  If so, I need you to come wash my truck.  Partly because I need it done, mostly because you're an idiot, and maybe because you had an adolescent fantasy of being forced into some bondage gear and forced to shine Nancy Pelosi's shoes. 

Who are you working for today?  Did you sign a "social contract" stating that you would give Barack the money you earned through April 18th? 

I didn't think so. 

It's time for a slave revolt. 

The Libertarian Party awaits. 

Why many people believe that government leaves them alone

Bryan Caplan at EconLog has been phenomenal for the last few weeks. 

Here's something on why so many people see government as a force for good, and with the same set of eyes see McDonald's, Mobil, Wal-Mart (or whoever you sell your labor to) as being vaguely evil. 

Good stuff.  Go here to read the whole thing. 

The government very rarely tells me to do anything.  Once per year, the IRS orders me to pay federal income taxes.  Once per year, the state of Virginia forces me to pay state income taxes and get my car inspected.  Once per year, Fairfax County makes me pay property taxes.  Traffic laws aside, the government leaves me alone more than 350 days per year.

How is this possible when the government regulates almost every aspect of American life, and takes 40% of GDP?  The government controls the labor market (especially for foreign workers).  The government decides what products I can and can't buy.  The government runs a massive retirement system that I can't escape without leaving the country.  How can the government control me so thoroughly yet so rarely boss me around?

The answer is simple yet shocking: Government controls me by controlling my trading partners.  Government doesn't tell me to pay sales taxes; it just forces every business in Virginia to collect sales taxes as a condition of sale.  Government doesn't tell me who I can and can't hire; it just tells every business I deal with who they can and can't hire.  Government doesn't even tell me I have to contribute to Social Security; it just requires my employer to make contributions on my behalf as a condition of employing me.

Why is government coercion so predominantly indirect?  Most economists would cite transactions costs.  Bossing CostCo around is far easier than bossing all of CostCo's customers around.  But this explanation is unsatisfying.  Government eschews many cheap ways to directly bully private individuals into submission.  For example, if government really wanted to crack down on scofflaws, it could pay cash bounties to whistleblowers of every description.  Anyone who hired an illegal nanny or failed to pay use tax on out-of-state Internet purchases would have to look over their shoulders day and night.  (Think about how many bounties a garbageman could collect!)  As long as the scofflaws were liable for the fines, an army of whistleblowers wouldn't cost the government a dime.

If this sounds draconian to you, you're in sight of my preferred story.  Governments rely on indirect coercion because direct coercion seems brutal, unfair, and wrong.  If the typical American saw the police bust down a stranger's door to arrest an undocumented nanny and the parents who hired her, the typical American would morally side with the strangers.  If the typical American saw regulators confiscate a stranger's expired milk, he'd side with the strangers.  If the typical American found out his neighbor narced on a stranger for failing to pay use tax on an out-of-state Internet purchase, he'd damn his neighbor, not the stranger.  Why?  Because each of these cases activates the common-sense moral intuition that people have a duty to leave nonviolent people alone.

Switching to indirect coercion is a shrewd way for government to sedate our moral intuition.  When government forces CostCo to collect Social Security taxes, the typical American doesn't see some people violating their duty to leave other people alone.  Why?  Because they picture CostCo as an inhuman "organization," not a very human "bunch of people working together."  Government's trick, in short, is to redirect its coercion toward crucial dehumanized actors like business (and foreigners, but don't get me started).  Then government can coerce business into denying individuals a vast array of peaceful options, without looking like a bully or a busy-body.

Well, I have thought of them as bullies and busy-bodies for about the last ten years.  But I couldn't articulate it as well as Kaplan.  Well said, sir. 

Nudges that I would like to see

Nudges are the big thing this year.  Instead of legislating that people do the “right” thing (in the eyes of our bureaucratic overlords) people are now being nudged. 

"Nudge" is a verb meaning:

1.push or poke somebody: to push or poke somebody gently, usually with a motion of the elbow

2.move something: to move something gently, especially by pushing it slowly and carefully

 

Here’s the New American:

In an effort to “nudge” Americans to support bigger and more intrusive government while changing behavior to suit the whims of the political class in Washington, D.C., the Obama administration is following the lead of U.K. authorities by building what the White House refers to as a “Behavioral Insights Team.” According to an official document about the scheme aimed at recruiting personnel, the controversial team will be charged with prodding the U.S. population to think and behave in ways that officials deem best on everything from "sustainability" to health and education.

Whereas a traditional Nanny Stater might demand that we recyle, and penalize those who don’t, a nudger might hand out free in-home recycling containers, literature on how much we save by recycling, and prizes for kids who experiment with recycling at the Science Fair. 

 

 

 

Another example: some employers beg, cajole, threaten and scare employees into participating in the 401K retirement plan.  At Jukt Micronics, we take a different approach…..  We sign up everyone, and then send out a memo stating that if you don’t want to be on the 401K plan, you have to fill out some paperwork.  In this case the nudge is a slight hassle to do the wrong thing. 

Here are a few nudges that I would like to see in place, and a few wouldn’t even require major legislation, but they would move the citizenry toward liberty.  (Of course, anyone wanting to remain a slave to the 20500 D.C. zip code inhabitants should be allowed to remain in bondage.) 

 

1)      Federal Income tax should be paid by the individual, not withheld by the person who happens to be purchasing labor from that individual.  If we get to hold the money in our fat little hands before it is sent to Washington to blow up Syrians, imprison black pot smokers, and subsidize failing schools, we are more likely to vote for smaller government.  Employers who want to continue to act as Obama’s bag man should be allowed to do so.    

 

2)      Federal income taxes should be paid once a month.  I really like the idea of 60 million American households pulling out the checkbook on October the first and writing a check to the Treasury.  And then doing it again on November the first.   And December the first.   And January the first.  Every month, you gotta write Barack a check.  (There’s a reason that election day and tax day are currently as far apart as possible.)  If households have to write a check each month, they’ll see The Teleprompter Jesus’s “investments” in green /education /infrastructure bullshit in a new and exciting way.  They would be more likely to vote for a different ” investment”  broker.  Preferably one who would leave them and their money alone. 

 

3)      We are currently in a Two-Party Death Grip.  The thumbs are the Silly Party and the fingers belong to the Stupid Party.   There are people in the Stupid Party who would be willing to vote for a 3rd Party candidate (like Gary Johnson), but they’re afraid that it’ll just help the Silly Party win.  And vice-versa.  If we had a system of approval voting (hit the link), Sillies, Stupids, and Libertarian Sluggards could vote for multiple candidates in each race, and the highest vote total would win.  It would end the “wasted vote” fallacy.  Until we do something to break the Two-Party Death Grip, we’re going to get the government we deserve.  This would cost nothing, it could eliminate expensive primaries, and voters would have a real choice instead of the lesser of two lessers.   Imagine a ballot with Barack, Hillary, Newt, Mitt, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson, a Green, a Constitutionalist, and anyone else who could get signatures or ballot access.  I might vote for Gary and Rand and the Constitution guy.  Someone in favor of debt slavery and war might vote only for Obama and Newt.   The single candidate with the highest total wins. 

 

4)      Current legislation is usually presented to the public with a price tag, but none of these price tags have a due date.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see  “to be paid in full no later than 12-31-2013” on a spending bill?  Along with some language detailing where the money would come from?  Do you think that might nudge politicians and voters to be more realistic? 

 

5)      I’ve written before about how my employer, Jukt Micronics, has achieved an astonishing level of racial diversity by the simple expedient of wanting to make a whole lot of money.  The Federal government tries to accomplish this goal by threatening to sue your ass until it glows like a Japanese power plant.  We should nudge employers to hire a wider assortment of minorities by ending all anti-discrimination “protections” for two years.  I promise that employers would be more likely to hire blacks, browns, gays, women, old farts and the handicapped if they couldn’t be sued for replacing the employee if the relationship went bad.  Money is one of the greatest nudgers ever, and if you don't discriminate regarding things that really don't freakin' matter, you have a much better chance of making a pile o' money. 

That's all I got.  Go ye therefore and nudge. 

 

Who makes more from a gallon of gas - Exxon or Barack??

This guy is awesome, and needs to be the next chairman of the Fed. 
Watch it on Youtube to see the rest of his stuff. 

Hong Kong vs Detroit

Here's a Canadian writer lamenting the high sales tax in The Frozen Tundra, as compared to that of Hong Kong.  (50 years ago, Hong Kong was a 3rd world slum, but was later set up to have the smallest government possible.) 

“I did a little calculation yesterday,” says Stuart Iliffe, a Canadian working in Hong Kong as chief financial officer of publishing house PPP Co. Ltd.


“If I earned $100,000 [all figures Canadian unless noted] in Canada, after tax I would keep $54,000. If I earned $100,000 in Hong Kong, and made use of the married man’s tax allowance, I would keep $90,100.”“Hong Kong keeps it very simple. There’s no capital gains tax, there’s no dividend tax, there’s no tax on interest, and you are only taxed on income earned in Hong Kong – not overseas. The system here makes people more entrepreneurial. Maximum personal tax is 15 per cent, but there are lots of allowances to get it lower, and corporate tax is set at 16.5 per cent – so people are not spending half their time trying to avoid or evade. You have money in your pocket and you do things with it. You invest. You buy shares or you start second businesses,” he says.

Ayesha Lau, partner in charge of Hong Kong tax at KPMG China, broadly agrees with Mr. Iliffe, but takes the view that low and simple taxation is one among a number of factors that make the city competitive. “Others are the rule of law, respect for private property, freedom from corruption in the business environment, efficient government, the free flow of capital – we have no exchange controls – protection of intellectual property rights, and the strategic location as a SAR which is part of China,” she says.

“You need to be able to make a profit before you pay tax, so the entrepreneurial culture is not driven by tax alone.”

Sounds like a good place to be, right? 

Let's compare that to Detroit. 

[The] per capita tax burden on City residents is the highest in Michigan. This tax burden is particularly severe because it is imposed on a population that has relatively low levels of per capita income.


The City’s income tax… is the highest in Michigan.

Detroit residents pay the highest total property tax rates (inclusive of property taxes paid to all overlapping jurisdictions; e.g., the City, the State, Wayne County) of those paid by residents of Michigan cities having a population over 50,000.

Detroit is the only city in Michigan that levies an excise tax on utility users (at a rate of 5%).

I've heard on the radio that they have the 3rd highest overall tax rates in the USA, but can't find documentation....but I did find this:

A study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy looked at effective property tax rates in the 50 largest U.S. cities in 2011. Detroit had the highest property tax rates of all 50 cities on homes, apartment buildings, commercial buildings, and industrial buildings.

What to make of all this? 
Here's a picture of Hong Kong. 

 Here's a picture of Detroit. 

The defense rests.  Keep the thieves from taking the income of the producers, and you'll have a much better chance at prosperity. 

Go here to purchase a coffee table book that documents the effects of letting Statists run your city for 3 generations.  It's called "The Ruins Of Detroit".  Incredible photography.  Treats the bombed-out shell of a city like most artists would treat ancient Rome or Athens. 

Quote of the decade, from Wes Benedict

The Libertarian Party of Texas recently sponsored a tax debate.  "Low Taxes vs. No Taxes"

Former LP Chair Wes Benedict, defending the "No Taxes" side, let loose with this gem:

"I'd rather see my dollars burned then see them go to the government." 

Wow. 

But think about it.  How do you feel about sponsoring the following:

The NSA

The Department of Energy

Lois Lerner

George W. Bush

The war in Afghanistan

Barack Obama

The war in Libya (yeah, there is one)

Aid To Families With Dependent Children (only pays if one parent leaves)

Social Security (totally mismanaged, and as broke as the 10 Commandments)

The war in Iraq

Jimmy Carter

The war in Yemen

Waste and inefficiency

Elaborate parties and conferences for the IRS and GAO

The Federal Reserve banking system

The place on Blue Mound Road in Fort Worth where the Fed prints is increasingly worthless paper money

Wiretaps

The 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, exceptions to which are sold like Big Macs

The Drug War

Providing 46% of the world's military spending, therefore encouraging terrorism

John Kerry

Hillary Clinton

Condi Rice

Support of Teachers' Unions

The Texas Department of Transportation

FEMA

Insane tariff and quota regulations which do nothing but add overhead

I'm typing as quickly as I can, and have to start work soon.  I bet I could go all day.  I repeat.... Here is the quote of the decade, from Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party.  If you disagree, I've got some farmland in the Everglades I'd like to sell you.....

"I'd rather see my dollars burned then see them go to the government."

The Tax Implications Of The X-Men Being Human Or Not Human

The X-Men are not human.  The courts have said so. 

Why would the courts care?

To enjoy this particular situation, one must be aware of the following:

1) Politicians are elected by selling exemptions to the tax code.  Sometimes these exemptions are in the form of exceptions to tariff and quota rules.  Sometimes a rule is put in place to punish a competitor.  

2) This is why our tax code is four million words long, and growing by the day.    

3) Efficiency is good.  Inefficiency is bad.  If all merchandise came into the United States at the same tax/tariff rate, we could eliminate tens of thousands of government jobs and the godawful pensions that go with them. 

4) These wasteful "jobs" will never be eliminated.  There will always be an organized groups for exemptions in their medical device / green energy / children with cooties / American flag / Bibles For The Troops / javelin / coffin handle / Scrabble tile-manufacturing industries.  These groups are more organized than you.  They'll get their exemption, and you'll be taxed to supply enough bureaucrats, lawyers and courts to keep the rules sorted out. 

Now that my preliminary throat-clearing is out of the way, here goes:  

 Toy Biz v. United States was a 2003 decision in the United States Court of International Trade that determined that for purposes of tariffs, Toy Biz's action figures were toys, not dolls, because they represented "nonhuman creatures." This decision effectively reduced the tariff rate by a factor of two.


U.S. law distinguishes between two types of action figures for determining tariffs: dolls, which are defined to include human figures, and toys, which include "nonhuman creatures". Because duties on dolls were higher than on toys, Marvel Comics subsidiary Toy Biz argued before the U.S. Court of International Trade, that their action figures (including the X-Men and Fantastic Four) represented "nonhuman creatures" and were subject to the lower tariff rates for toys instead of the higher ones for dolls. On January 3, 2003, after examining more than 60 action figures, Judge Judith Barzilay ruled in their favor, granting Toy Biz reimbursement for import taxes on previous toys.

To summarize, the taxes on imported (human) dolls are lower than the taxes on imported (non-human) toys.  There's no reason for this distinction, and it would take a dozen Library Of Congress employees to figure out which politician put the distinction in place.  The donor he did it for is probably long-dead. 

It took almost ten years and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars in expenses to make this toy vs. doll distinction.

Here's just part of one logic behind one of the official rulings.  Go here for the whole thing.  If you can read this without praying for a nuclear strike on D.C., you're not part of the 49% who pay taxes.  

It is Customs position that the intent of the committees in reaching this conclusion is to deny the doll classification to those figures which possess non-human characteristics that are immediately apparent to the casual observer. Where the non-human feature(s) can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate. The phrase "close examination" may encompass the need to look closely, the need to remove the clothes of the figure, or perhaps even the need of the observer to guess as to whether a feature that appears to be non-human is, in actuality, such a feature. Most angels and devils possess readily apparent non-human features, i.e., halos, large wings, visible horns, pointed tails, etc. -6-


However, if a figure is marketed as an angel or devil, and yet appears human to the casual observer, then, again, the doll classification may be appropriate.

In HRLs 081201 and 089895, issued October 3, 1988 and November 4, 1991, respectively, we classified certain troll figures that were described, in pertinent part, as being pot- bellied, flesh-colored, erect-standing figures, having flat heads with virtually no foreheads, pointed ears, and large, upturned snouts. We noted the guidance provided by the EN, that dolls should "represent" human beings, and cited Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961), which defines "represent" as meaning "to portray by pictorial, plastic, or musical art: delineate, depict...to serve as the counterpart or image of: typify." In each case, we held that, while certain troll figures may have "resembled" human beings to some extent, it was immediately apparent to the casual observer that the subject figures did not "represent" humans, but rather represented widely recognized non-human creatures, i.e., trolls.

In HRL 085855, issued August 9, 1990, this office affirmed the doll classification of a "Beetlejuice" figure, which represented the ghost character from a popular movie and television show. The doll featured characteristics claimed to be non-human, but which could only be discovered by close examination. We stated that "[i]n order not to be classified as dolls, figures representing...other creatures, must possess appendages and features which immediately, at first glance, identify them as non-human."

Looking to the figures that have been classified as dolls in this case, we note that in most instances, the patent distortions essentially consist of such features as odd skin color, intricate headgear, capes which bear resemblance to wings, weaponry that is uniquely attached to, but is not an integral part of, the body, etc. As noted above, when a figure's non-human features can only be discovered by close examination, the doll classification may be appropriate.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.  Come quickly. 

This brings us to the related case of Kamar Int’l v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 658 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986).

That case dealt with whether E.T. the Extraterrestrial dolls represented an “animate” object, which would result in a lower tax rate than for toys in general (the customs classifications have changed a lot over the years, apparently). The Court of International Trade agreed with the plaintiff, despite the United States’ arguments that E.T. was a fictional alien and thus not an animate object. The Court cited as precedent the classification of Star Wars toys as toy figures of animate objects because “as depicted in the movie Star Wars they are living beings endowed with animal life.” Kamar, 10 C.I.T. at 661.

I don't believe that the E.T. case should have been argued as Dolls vs. Toys. 
Dolls vs. some other type of toy woulda been the appropriate discussion. 

A Hypothetical Question On Why You Took Your Income Tax Deductions

Thanks to heroic efforts on the part of Mrs. Sepulchre, we're going to get a $4.00 check (of our own money) back from Obama. 

We claimed every possible deduction.  Work mileage, political activism for non-profits, charitable deductions, and on and on and on. 

I don't speak for Mrs. Sepulchre on this website. 

But the reason I like to take every possible deduction is that I think I can spend my money better than Barack, Boehner, Reid, Rick Perry, and whichever Monsanto employees are running the FDA this week. 

I believe that every single dollar given to the U.S. government will be, at worst, spent on very bad things for very bad reasons, and at best, spent more inefficiently than it would be spent in the private sector. 

That's why Libertarians take every possible tax deduction. 

If you're not a Libertarian, what was your excuse for doing the exact same thing? 

311,604 Federal Workers doing their part to prevent government waste

Several years ago I began awarding trophies called "The Whitey" to citizens who did their part to eliminate government waste.
The best way to eliminate government waste is to avoid paying your taxes.  If you don't give them your money, they can't waste it.  
An astounding number of Whiteys went to rejected (and confirmed) members of Obama's cabinet.  Timmy "TurboTax" Geithner, Tom Daschle, etc etc etc all did their part to keep their hard earned dollars out of The U.S. Treasury.  Hit the "Whiteys" label at the bottom to read about previous award winners.

Lord have mercy, they're still trying to devalue the trophy.  

From the Tax Prof Blog:

311,566 federal workers and retirees owed more than $3.5 billion in back income taxes in 2011 (up from $3.4 billion in 2010, $3.3 billion in 2009, $3.0 billion in 2008, and $2.7 billion in 2007).

And from Investor's Business Daily.  Looks like 40 of Barack's lackeys and handmaidens have been doing their share:

A new report from the Internal Revenue Service has just revealed that 40 of Obama's White House aides owe their employer, the federal government, a total of $333,485 in back taxes.
This is the third straight year that the chief executive of the United States has been unable to get his own staff members to keep up with a citizen's legal income tax obligations. to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes owed. All this while Obama has made such rhetorical hay about corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share.

That's 311,604 current and former suckers of the government tit who are doing their part to keep their own money from being wasted by Barack H. Obama. 

Here are your Whitey Awards !!

Be careful when you start punishing the rich

Go here to see a PDF of a 1913 income tax form. 

I found it on Libertarian Reddit.

Your typical 1913 wage earner didn't have to pay any income taxes.  Adjust for inflation, and the rates look like this:

•1% on $470,000 - $1.17million


•2% on $1.17 - 1.75 million

•3% on $1.75 - 2.34 million

•4% on $2.34 - 5.84 million

•5% on $5.84 to 11.7 million

•6% on all incomes over $11.7 million

Here's the rub...."It's easy to convince people to support this kind of progressive revenue system.  Joe LunchBox never dreams of earning enough money to have to worry about this tax! It's just making those greedy ten-thousandaires pay their fair share. The average annual US income in 1913 was somewhere between $1,300 and $3,000 depending on who you ask."


"Fast forward: The income tax kicks in at $8,700 annual income and tops out at an income of $388,350... in 2012 dollars. Over the last 100 years, the rate brackets have inexorably inched their way down, while salaries, wages, and all prices increase with inflation; slowly pushing everyone into the next tax bracket without any real gain in their purchasing power."

The other moral of this story is fairly simple....  No matter how much money they take in, they're going to spend it.  Usually on very bad things. 

A quick note to waitresses, waiters and bartenders

Robert Samuelson, one of the House Economists at The Washington Post, has penned a quick and dirty hit on ObamaCare. 

The points he makes are similar to the ones our company president made in a management meeting a week ago.  Namely, ObamaCare is going to change our lives.  For the worse. 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences is going to be a major factor here.....

Here's Samuelson:

Just recently, the Internal Revenue Service issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The difference matters, because the act requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance for those workers. At the same time, no company has to buy insurance for part-time employees, defined as those working less than 30 hours a week.....

Let me interrupt here....  They're not going to let anyone chop a 500 employee company into 10 smaller companies with 49 employees each.  We've already checked. 
This alone is proof that ObamaCare is going to be a drain on the economy.  No business owner is going to hire employee number 50 without lots of prayer and fasting. 
It's also proof that the President Of The United States flunked Economics 101 at Occidental College.  You can look it up.  Having never held a real private sector job, he doesn't understand incentives.   

Obamacare has faded as a campaign issue, perhaps because it doesn’t suit either the president or Mitt Romney. It’s not popular, a minus for Barack Obama. Its resemblance to Romney’s Massachusetts program is a minus for him. But Obamacare’s relentless march to full-fledged introduction in 2014 demonstrates that, for all its good intentions, it will make the health-care system more confusing (see here), costly and contentious. It won’t control health spending — the system’s main problem — and will weaken job creation.

One more interruption....  Things are expensive when they are scarce, relative to demand.  ObamaCare doesn't eliminate the scarcity of doctors, nurses, or drugs.  It only eliminates the scarcity of IRS worker/drones by mandating that we hire another 16,000 of them. 

Consider the treatment of full-time and part-time workers as an object lesson.

Exempting part-time workers is a concession to practicality. If companies had to provide insurance for all part-time and seasonal workers — often unskilled and poorly paid — the high costs (a worker-only insurance policy can run more than $5,000) would eliminate many jobs or inspire mass evasion. On the other hand, exempting too many “part-time” and “seasonal” workers would make achieving near-universal insurance coverage much harder.

I think we're gonna see "mass evasion".  Remember this, oh waitresses, waiters and bartenders....  You don't claim all of your tips and income on your taxes.  If our Lord And Savior Jesus Christ was a bartender, he wouldn't claim all of his tips on Caesar's taxes.  So don't get all pissy if your employer tries to save some money on taxes. 

So there’s a balancing act: preserving jobs vs. providing insurance. The problem isn’t small. In September, 34 million workers, about a quarter of total workers, were part-time, reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But the bureau defines part time as less than 35 hours a week; Obamacare’s 30 hours a week was presumably adopted to expand insurance coverage. There are now 10 million workers averaging between 30 and 34 hours a week. To the bureau, they are part-time; under Obamacare, they’re full-time.

So do you think your employer is going to leave you at 35 hours a week, just to satisfy the mandates of this crazed bastard?  Or do you think he's going to cut you to 30?  Remember this, watresses, waiters, musicians and bartenders....You don't claim all your tips on your taxes.  You want that money.  You don't want John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and Barack to have it.  So what's your employer going to do???  He's going to do the same thing you do.  End of story.  He will not give the government any more money, for the same reasons that you don't. 

Employers have a huge incentive to hold workers under the 30-hour weekly threshold. The requirement to provide insurance above that acts as a steep employment tax. Companies will try to minimize the tax. The most vulnerable workers are the poorest and least skilled who can be most easily replaced and for whom insurance costs loom largest. Indeed, the adjustment has already started.

But...But...But....when I voted for Obama, that's not what I thought would happen !! 
Yeah, yeah, I know.  It was really cool to vote for the hip, fit, multi-racial guy and make history.  You've made your point.  Now you can make your point by staying home on November 6th. 

As first reported in the Orlando Sentinel, Darden Restaurants — owners of about 2,000 outlets, including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains — is studying ways to shift more employees under the 30-hour ceiling. About three-quarters of its 185,000 workers are already under, says spokesman Rich Jeffers. The question is “can we go higher and still deliver a great [eating] experience.” The financial stakes are sizable. Suppose Darden moves 1,000 servers under 30 hours and avoids paying $5,000 insurance for each. The annual savings: $5 million.

I just finished reading Keith Richards' autobiography.  Fascinating book.  Scattered throughout are accounts of how he and the other Rolling Stones have a masssive roster of lawyers and accountants telling them where they can live, rehearse, and record (and for how long) because of the tax implications. 

This isn't evil.  It isn't selfishness.  It's why you don't report all your tips on your taxes.  You believe, like Keith Richards, that you are the best at spending your own money.  And this includes charitable contributions. 

As a reaction to Obamacare, this makes business sense, but in other ways, it doesn’t. Waiters and waitresses going below 30 hours a week will lose income. They make about $15 an hour with tips, says Jeffers. A server who drops five hours would lose $75 a week. Although some servers under the limit might increase their hours and incomes, jobs will become less attractive because earnings will be effectively capped. Turnover, already 50 percent annually, might rise, as would Darden’s training costs. On average, servers receive 35 hours of training, says Jeffers.

Here's something from the preface to "Anthem", a short novel by Ayn Rand:

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"

Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.

They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

So, do you want it?  Better hurry.  You've got two weeks to decide between an Obamney or Gary Johnson. 

Many companies, especially in the fast-food, retailing and hotel industries, will explore similar changes. Some workers will resent the limits on their wages. Others will think that companies have illegally denied them insurance, even though the IRS guidelines permit much flexibility in calculating who exceeds the 30-hour limit. That’s why the IRS notice is so long and complex. Still, some firms will cheat; enforcement will be hard.

But government bureaucrats and the insurance companies that they're demanding you purchase insurance from?  They're going to do well. 

The argument about Obamacare is often framed as a moral issue. It’s the caring and compassionate against the cruel and heartless. That’s the rhetoric; the reality is different. Many of us who oppose Obamacare don’t do so because we enjoy seeing people suffer. We believe that, in an ideal world, everyone would have insurance. But we also think that Obamacare has huge drawbacks that outweigh its plausible benefits.

Would you support Jimmy Swaggart's Healthcare Plan?  Please list the reasons you wouldn't.  Those are the reasons to oppose ObamaCare. 

It creates powerful pressures against companies hiring full-time workers — precisely the wrong approach after the worst economic slump since the Depression. There will be more bewildering regulations, more regulatory uncertainties, more unintended side effects and more disappointments. A costly and opaque system will become more so.

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  There are huge penalties associated the 50th employee.  There are huge penalties associated with hiring ONE full-timer. 
You must face it, and decide if this is what you want or not. 

Why shouldn't Olympic earnings be taxed?

Florida's Marco Rubio is trying to ensure that Olympians aren't taxed for bringing home gold, silver, or bronze medals. 

The Florida Republican introduced a bill today to exempt U.S. Olympic medal winners from paying taxes on their medals. In addition to gold, silver or bronze, medal winners receive cash payments to go with their hardware.

Rubio said the American medal winners get honorariums from the U.S. Olympic Committee of $25,000 (for winning gold), $15,000 (for silver) and $10,000 for bronze, with the Internal Revenue Service ever ready to collect.

"Our tax code is a complicated and burdensome mess that too often punishes success, and the tax imposed on Olympic medal winners is a classic example of this madness," said Rubio, a Tea Party favorite. "Athletes representing our nation overseas in the Olympics shouldn't have to worry about an extra tax bill waiting for them back home."

Similar measures have also been introduced in the House, by Reps. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., and G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C.

Under the legislation, the gross income of U.S. Olympians "shall not include the value of any prize or award won by the taxpayer in athletic competition in the Olympic Games." If the bill becomes law, it would apply to prizes received after Dec. 31, 2011.

Ok, so Michael Phelps works his butt off to win $25K, and wouldn't have to pay taxes on it.
 
Some other guy who isn't on television works his butt off to write a book, sell a painting, or even puts a lot of money at risk to win $25K at the blackjack tables in Vegas.  He still has to pay taxes on that, because he isn't representing our nation overseas?? 

Can someone please clarify the distinction that Rubio is trying to make? 

In case you're new to this site, I believe that 80% of all tax dollars are mis-spent.  The worst thing that can happen to an Olympian's hard-earned dollar is for Tim Geithner to get his grubby little paws on it.  But I don't think it makes sense to exempt Group A from taxes but not Group B.  Especially when Group B supplies the donations that make Group A's useless but entertaining activity possible. 

Arizona is now outsourcing corruption.

Ok, most every libertarian I've ever met believes that government intervention in the economy is a bad thing.  It gives bureaucrats and donation-seekers a chance to pick winners and losers.
 
Here's the Coyote Blog's take on the situation:

I have written before about government corporate subsidies and attempts at venture capital investment in the context of the “big shot” effect.  Many times I have come to suspect the biggest beneficiary of these programs is to the administrators themselves, who have no money of their own and wouldn’t ever be trusted to manage a private portfolio but get to act as “big shots” with other peoples’ money.  They get the psychic benefit of being little junior Donald Trumps.

Every libertarian I've ever met believes that giving subsidies, quotas, tax breaks and (ahem) "incentives" to some segments of the economy is a bad thing.  It gives bureaucrats and politicians a chance to pick winners and losers, reward friends and punish enemies. 

Every libertarian I've ever met also believes that a huge chunk of government activity should be left to the private sector or non-profits.  (Exceptions would be for activities requiring the use of force.) 

Most libertarians delight in pointing out how government screws up just about everything it touches.  (Exception granted for the military.  If you want to go overseas and blow up brown people, our forces are the best.) 

I'm as lazy as the next person.  But if I were to go work for the government, I'd want to control the distribution of the pork, the shoveling of the slop, and the gathering of the graft. 

The great state of Arizona has admitted that it can't even do that. 

Arizona has outsourced its corruption.  They've created a public/private "partnership" called the Arizona Commerce Authority to  hand out special priviliges, pork, and tax breaks.  I don't care who you are, what political label you wear, or even if you think tax breaks for donors are a good thing.  I don't care.  Because...This....Is....Funny !!

They've admitted they can't even dish out pork and patronage effectively.  Hell, what would the Daleys of Chicago think of this? 

Go here to read more at the Privatization Blog. 

Go here for the Coyote Blog's take on it. 

Then turn your ears toward Phoenix and listen for the sound of the scoops rattling around inside the slop buckets.  Come and get it !!! 

"Violence is No Way For Civilized People to Get Their Revenue"

From Mark Hinkle, Libertarian Party National Chair:

“While everyone needs revenue, only criminals and politicians insist that they have to get it through violence. The criminals, however, do not pretend they're doing it in order to serve the public, and taxes make politicians public masters rather than public servants.

“Certainly, the present size of government at all levels depends on taxation – not only the explicit kind, but the invisible kind that the Federal Reserve System imposes through inflation of the money supply. People probably wouldn't voluntarily pay to bomb, invade, and occupy other countries, bail out large banks and other corporations, and try to dictate the personal choices of others. Good riddance! Government-monopolized services such as education and health care could be provided for less than half the cost if they could be returned to the voluntary sector of society with cost-raising regulations abolished and incentives restored. Both mutual aid groups and charitable donations filled gaps prior to the rise of the Welfare State for those in need with an efficiency that is impossible when those in charge of aid get more money and power for themselves the worse the job they perform. We’ll have to take some personal responsibility for our own lives and stop using the excuse Ebenezer Scrooge made that his taxes supported institutions for the poor so he could ignore them.

“It is obscene for those claiming to protect life, liberty, and property to obtain their revenue by violating life, liberty, and property. There are plenty of ways to obtain revenue without force: insurance, user fees, advertising, lotteries, and donations are already used by many local and state governments for a good portion of their revenue. Let them be true public servants and live within the means that these sources provide. People might even pay more voluntarily once they're no longer forced to turn over 1/3 to 1/2 of their wealth to governments.

“Ultimately, it is about the type of society we want to have. We can accomplish a lot voluntarily when we mutually respect each other's lives and property. It begins by respecting the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. A good start would be the abolition of the personal income tax, which only adds insult to the injury of theft by invading every part of the taxpayer's privacy as well as making the second week of April a misery instead of a time to enjoy the early spring.”

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice to downsize Big Government, to do so in the most humane way possible, to greatly reduce taxes, and to slash high government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can simply make a contribution.

Why do you do claim tax deductions?

I'm gathering receipts so I can use them for tax deductions. 
I'm going to claim every deduction that I can possibly find. 

I think I'm the one who makes the best use of my money.  There are some charities that get a substantial chunk of the household income, but I like being able to choose which ones.  Knowing that I have a choice helps keep them honest. 

It irks the heck out of me that my employer has to act as tax collector, child-support gatherer, healthcare provider, and immigration status verifier.  I wish they could hang out a sign that says "Will swap money in exchange for labor" and go on with their business of making fruitstands.  Think of the administrative savings!!

 If we all had to write a check to Uncle Sam every month or every quarter, instead of having the money withheld, support for Mr. Obama's Dirty Little Wars on Brown People, Drugs and Prosperity would plummet.  Collecting taxes should be John Boehner's job, not the job of someone you swap your labor with.

Government is the worst possible way of getting most things done.  Possible exceptions are roads and other infrastructure, providing a courts system to enforce contracts and take care of externalities, and defending the borders (ours, not Korea's).  I think that delivering the mail, education, jobs, healthcare, energy, innovation, and spreading Democracy are jobs best left to the private sector.  (See: Eastern Hills High School, VA Hospitals, Solyndra, LightSquared and Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) 

A lot of my statist friends fight tooth and nail to avoid paying any more than required.  I respect them for that more than they'll ever know.  I wish that I had the courage to take Uncle Sam to court. 

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway fund owes taxes going back to 2002.  Buffett could simply do what he advocates: Write the government a check for 1.2 billion.  I don't think he'll do that.  IMHO, Warren Buffett believes that he and his shareholders will use the 1.2 billion more wisely than John Boehner and John Cornyn. 

Anyway, back to my point.  Those are my reasons for claiming every deduction that I can find. 

If you disagree with me, what are your reasons for doing the exact...same...thing? 

The income tax bumpersticker came from Richard Forsythe's truck.  The pic of Buffett morphing back and forth between Capitalist Robber Baron and Capitalist Robber Baron Who Makes Pleasing Sounds For Obama came from here. 

Person Of The Year for 2011 - the nomination standards

The Person Of The Year for 2010 was Thomas J. Perez, the Justice Department's unelected menace who refused to allow state college textbooks to be made available on the Kindle because they discriminate against blind people. 

The Year Of Our Lord 2011 will require different standards.  The Teleprompter Jesus is being more careful these days and isn't regulating, banning, forbidding, subsidizing and porking quite so blatantly with another election looming.  Therefore 2011's POTY will be selected by other guidelines, guidelines that reflect the spirit of the last 365 days. 

Here goes: 

1)  All successful people avoid paying taxes, much like all sane people avoid drinking diesel fuel.  But to be honored and praised in the year 2011, one must lobby for higher taxes for the wealthy, even if one is wealthy.  Warren Buffett, for instance, lobbied for higher taxes while his Berkshire-Hathaway firm was fighting the government (for two years) over a billion-dollar tax bill.  The successful applicant for POTY2011 must rise to this level of hypocrisy.  

2)  I believe that it is none of the government's business if I send jobs to North Dakota, Canada, Mexico, China, the moon, or the ice planet Nekthar.  It saves money for my customers, and THAT is what helps an economy grow.  This is a minority opinion, though.  Some Republican presidential candidates are being pilloried by other Republicans for committing similar Acts Of Capitalism. 
Obama has thoroughly condemned anyone who sends a "job" overseas. 

To run a large business efficiently, one must seek out the lowest labor rates. 
But to gain favor with The Obamessiah, one must blather on and on about saving American jobs. 
The successful applicant for POTY2011 will do both. 

3)  Green, Green, Green !!   This is one area where our government Lords'n'Masters still insist on more and more regulation and control.  My trucking company is about to jump over some truly idiotic hurdles because of these bundles of red tape.  (And oh yes, oh yes, I'll be posting about them.) 
They're pointless. 
The planet isn't warming. 
But these regulations are nice symbolic gestures that keeps little government toads, gremlins and hobbits employed and feeling righteous.  The POTY2011 must subsidize, manufacture, market, lobby for, or mandate a product or activity that is nothing more than an expression of Cultural Sanctimony. 
He must also profity handsomely from this activity. 

4)  There has been an unhealthy overlap betwen Obama's Big Government and Big Business for the last year.  Well-informed political junkies call it Fascism.  Others call it Crony Capitalism, or a rebirth of old-school British Mercantilism. 
I generally describe it as Fascism because, of course, that's what it is. 

Therefore, the Person Of The Year for 2011 must work for the government and for a major corporation. 
At the same time.   

Those are the standards by which the Person Of The Year for 2011 will be chosen.  I eagerly await the Committee's decision. 

Fascism pic came from here. 

Which variety of wasteful spending creates the most jobs?

Our government employees are now arguing over which type of wasteful spending creates the most jobs - Military waste, or Domestic waste. 

From ThinkProgress:

Facing deep spending cuts, the Department of Defense, including Secretary Leon Panetta, and military-industrial trade associations have complained that tightening the U.S. security budget will cause greater unemployment. And even while toeing the (dubious) conservative line that government spending cannot create jobs, right wingers like Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) insist that military spending must stay high to keep unemployment from increasing.


But a new study (PDF) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) highlighted by economist Dean Baker shows that, contra the conservative talking point, non-military spending can create more jobs than money going to defense programs. (Blah blah blah blah blah....Hit the link at the top to read the whole thing.)  Among them, military spending was the lowest, creating fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than even consumer-oriented tax cuts.


Here’s a chart from the study showing how many jobs each area produced from a billion dollars in spending:

Great God Almighty, where to begin, where to begin....

Let's start with the motivations of entrepreneurs in the real world.  Think of the people you know who have started their own businesses.  I've never heard someone describe the experience by saying "Well, you know, I had this overwhelming urge to work 80 hour weeks, with no guarantee of a reward, so that I could hire a lot of people."
But letting entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses are the only way to grow the economy, and that's the only way out of the current swamp where we find ourselves.  Uncle Sam's remedies are politcally-oriented, not economically-oriented.  The Obamamedia have done such an outstanding job of parroting Barry's "jobs created or saved" bullshit, no Congressman will ever again stand in front of a microphone and boast of lowering taxes on businesses so they can grow and make a lot of money (and incidentally, maybe hire people). 

On to the next point....  Do domestic spending boondoggles create more jobs than military boondoggles?  That's an interesting question, one that I hope will be fully answered in the next life. 
In the meantime, debating such gibberish is contributing to the problem. 
It doesn't matter if we're going to the Middle East to blow up brown children, or preserving the Department of Education to destroy our own children.  If we're doing either of these to create jobs in the U.S., we're screwing up.  It would destroy fewer resources and minds if we paid the soldiers and education bureaucrats to stay home.  Long-term welfare, according to a lot of experts, is harmful.  But it's not as harmful as maintaining bad programs to "create jobs", right? 

Third, nowhere in this idiotic article does the author acknowledge that the money from this crap comes from someplace else: taxes, loans, or Bernanke's printing press. 
Taxes are a necessary evil, even at the lowest rates.  At worst, they stifle growth. 
Taking out loans to be paid by unborn fetuses?  Let's go ahead and call that bad. 
Bernanke's printing presses should be carefully disassembled, and the component parts distributed to the bottoms of lakes and oceans all over the world. 

I hope that I never wake up in the morning and read something like this again. 

Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back !!!!!!!!!!

Back in 2010, a writer named Brent Budowsky almost put himself in the hospital from just thinking about the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a Consumer Protection boondoggle of some sort. 

Most of the rational world had a great time with his piece, an editorial in which Budowsky imagined peace in Israel, justice in this life, the lion laying down with the lamb, the Democrats rallying behind Obama, and other unlikely scenarios - all from the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a bureaucracy. 

Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back, and she's running for the Senate.  Here's something she had to say a few days ago at a political rally:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!


But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Ok, let's look a little closer.....

Tax units in the lowest quintile (20%) pay 0.4 percent (of the total tax burden), while those in the second, third (or middle), and fourth quintiles pay 2.3 percent, 7.7 percent, and 17.6 percent respectively.


The top quintile pays 71.9 percent. The top 10 percent pays 55.9 percent while the top 0.1 percent pays 12.3 percent.

What it boils down to is that some very rich people have a lot of money, and Elizabeth ! Warren !! wants more of it.
Here's the pic that's currently making the rounds on Facebook, which I think sums up the situation nicely:

But wait !!!    It keeps getting better.  I found this parody here. 
Enjoy. 

On the places where Warren Buffett chooses to invest his money, Part 3, The final conflict !!!

Warren Buffett wishes he could pay more taxes, if only someone would make him. 

Check out my two previous posts,

Then look at what this guy wrote. 

Lord have mercy, what a Corporatist/Statist tool.