Multibillionaire Warren Buffet does not feel he is paying enough federal income tax.
He suggests the government tax him more. ... what does he mean by "more?" Is he suggesting taxing billionaires out of existence?
Would you be in favor of abolishing billionaires? Millionaires? What about corporations with net incomes in excess of $1 million? If so, why? To eliminate the deficit?
Remember, if taxes on individuals with annual incomes in excess of $1 million were doubled, it would only cut our $1.5 trillion deficit by roughly 17 percent. So if making the "super-rich" pay their "fair share" is your solution to eliminating the deficit, you might wish to consider "nationalizing" their wealth, instead.
And if you favor "nationalizing their wealth," how do you define "billionaire?" "millionaire?" (Bs and Ms.)
Do we define Bs and Ms based on how much property they own? Or is a B someone with an annual adjusted gross income of a $1 billion or more?
If you classify people based on their annual income, then abolishing Bs and Ms is as easy as raising the taxes they pay. You might, for example, pass a law which says "all persons with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million shall pay a tax sufficient to reduce their after-tax income to $999,999.99." Or perhaps to $100,000!
But if you define Bs and Ms based on the net value of their estates, then you will probably need to pass an excise tax, taxing the privilege of being rich or owning property in a sum sufficient to reduce the net worth of each to $999,999.99, or less. After all, that is the theory of the Obamacare's individual mandate. If not having health insurance "affects interstate commerce," surely sitting on a mountain of money which the government could better use to stimulate the economy also adversely "affects interstate commerce."
Of course, abolishing Bs, Ms and corporations has been tried before. In 1918 the USSR enacted a Constitution that abolished capital and created a Republic of Soviet workers. And for 70 years, people lived dismal, bleak incentiveless lives, until the whole system collapsed in 1990.
Here are a few excerpts from the "enlightened" 1918 Soviet Constitution:
"Article 3. Its fundamental aims being abolition of all exploitation of man by man, complete elimination of the division of society into classes, merciless suppression of the exploiters, ... and victory of socialism in all countries, the ... Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies further resolves:
"a. Private land ownership is hereby abolished, and all land is proclaimed the property of the entire people ... on the principles of egalitarian land tenure.
"b. All forests, mineral wealth, waters of national importance ... and agricultural enterprises are proclaimed the property of the nation.
"c. The Soviet laws ... are ... confirmed ... to guarantee the power of the working people over the exploiters, as a first step towards the complete conversion of factories, mines, railways and other means of production and transportation into the property of the Soviet Workers' and Peasants' Republic.
"d. The Congress of Soviets regards as a first blow at international banking and financial capital, the Soviet law on the annulment of loans negotiated by the governments of the tzar, the landlords and the bourgeoisie ...
"e. To ensure the sovereign power of the working people and to rule out any possibility of restoration of the power of the exploiters, ... the creation of a socialist Red Army of workers and peasants, and the complete disarming of the propertied classes are hereby decreed."
So, before you decide to nationalize the income and the assets of Bs, Ms and greedy corporations, think twice. The America of your dreams, could very well end up looking a whole lot like the workers' paradise formerly known as the USSR. And if you are too young to remember the USSR, take a trip to Cuba.
It's only 90 miles away!
So why defend Bs and Ms (those who have lawfully amassed and lawfully utilize their wealth)?
It is not because I admire them or want to be one of them. It is because I am unwilling to exchange traditional American "equality of opportunity," for Soviet-style "equality of outcome."
As long as America has its Bs and Ms, you and I retain the liberty to become Bs and Ms. I defend them because I won't engage in class warfare, and because I refuse to covet my neighbors' goods. Because if their wealth can be expropriated, so can yours and mine.
Posted Online: Aug. 24, 2011, 2:46 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
America's Problem Isn't Debt Ceiling, It's Our Deficit Spending
It is 1:54 p.m. If at this minute you were to go to U.S. Debt Clock.org, you would see the national debt is $14,554,052,607,778, and rising fast by the second.
You would also see, that this year's federal budget deficit is $1,401,818,811,257 and rising by the second.
President Obama demands the debt ceiling be raised and matter fixed so that the problem will not have to be faced again until after the 2012 election. But assuming Congress passed a clean bill which dealt only with raising the debt ceiling, would that really fix the problem? If you think so, you are delusional.
The debt ceiling is only a symptom of decades of annual deficits. The country incurs a deficit when expenses exceed revenues. It is the deficit that increases the national debt. If we have to raise the debt ceiling by $1.4 trillion it is because we have a $1.4 trillion deficit this fiscal year.
There really are only two ways to eliminate this $1.4 trillion deficit:
-- Raise taxes, or
-- Cut spending. Borrowing only kicks the can down the road, and, because it involves interest payments, it increases the deficit. So anyone who tells you that we can fix the problem simply by raising the debt ceiling is an idiot or a con man. In fact, given roughly the same spending, and the same revenues, a year from now at this time we will have another $1.5 trillion deficit, and will therefore have to raise the debt ceiling by another $1.5 trillion.
So, if you are one of those who believes we can fix the problems by raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (hereinafter called M&Bs), here are figures published by the IRS. Read them, and then draw your own conclusions.
-- The IRS reports that in 2008, 140,436 taxpayers reported incomes greater than $1 million but less than $1.5 million.
-- 59,469 reported incomes greater than $1.5 million, but less than $2 million.
-- 86,329 reported incomes greater than $2 million, but less than $5 million.
-- 21,390 reported incomes greater than $5 million, but less than $10 million.
-- 13,480 reported incomes in excess of $10,000,000.
If you add those numbers, you will find that in 2008 there were 321,000 U. S. taxpayers who reported incomes in excess of $1 million
The same report shows that those M&Bs paid $249,019,545,000 in federal income taxes, after all credits.The total number of taxpayers in 2008 was 90 million. Income tax they paid after, all credits, was just over $1 trillion. As such, 321,000 out of 90 million paid just under 25 percent of all federal income taxes paid in 2008. That means .3 percent of the taxpayers paid 25 percent of all federal income taxes. This year, America will have a $1.5 trillion deficit. That means expenses will exceed revenue by $1.5 trillion.
So what's the solution?
The Republicans say cut $1.5 trillion from this year's budget. The president demands "shared sacrifice." He wants M&Bs to pay their fair share. So what is it? In 2008, the M&Bs paid $250 billion in taxes.Was that "fair" then?
What if we doubled their taxes this year? What if the M&Bs were required to pay $500 billion this year. That would still leave us $1.25 trillion deficit. But, if their taxes were doubled, would they then be paying their "fair share?" Would that be enough "shared sacrifice?"
What if the M&Bs 2011 income tax was quadrupled? That would generate $.75 trillion in new revenues, and would leave us with a deficit of only $750 billion. Would that be their "fair share?" Would that be sufficient "shared sacrifice?"
In 2008, taxpayers -- other than the M&Bs -- paid roughly $.75 trillion in federal income taxes. If the millionaires and billionaires are going to have their taxes quadrupled to raise $.75 trillion in new taxes, perhaps the remaining 99.7 percent of taxpayers would be willing to have their taxes doubled to generate the other $.75 trillion necessary to balance the budget. Would that be "fair?" Would you be willing to "share the sacrifice" to that extent?
Of course, 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. If you would be willing to double what you pay, I am certain they would be willing to double, treble or even quadruple what they pay. I am, of course, not naive enough to think that Americans with taxable incomes of less than $1 million who actually pay taxes, really want to see their taxes doubled. So, if you actually pay taxes, and you don't want them doubled, how much more are you willing to pay to eliminate the deficit? Anything less than a 100 percent increase won't do it, even if taxes are quadrupled on the M&Bs.
And of course if you are only willing to pay an additional 10 percent, why is it "fair" that the M&Bs pay an additional 100 percent or 300 percent -- while 51 percent of the American people pay nothing? At what point does taxing the M&Bs become naked plunder?
The bottom line is this: if you quadruple the income tax the M&Bs pay, you will still have a $.75 trillion deficit. So how much more are you willing to pay to cover the balance?
By the way, as I finish this revision, the U. S. Debt Clock now reads $14,544,068,702,280. And it is 2:25 p.m.
Posted Online: Aug. 18, 2011, 7:55 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
You would also see, that this year's federal budget deficit is $1,401,818,811,257 and rising by the second.
President Obama demands the debt ceiling be raised and matter fixed so that the problem will not have to be faced again until after the 2012 election. But assuming Congress passed a clean bill which dealt only with raising the debt ceiling, would that really fix the problem? If you think so, you are delusional.
The debt ceiling is only a symptom of decades of annual deficits. The country incurs a deficit when expenses exceed revenues. It is the deficit that increases the national debt. If we have to raise the debt ceiling by $1.4 trillion it is because we have a $1.4 trillion deficit this fiscal year.
There really are only two ways to eliminate this $1.4 trillion deficit:
-- Raise taxes, or
-- Cut spending. Borrowing only kicks the can down the road, and, because it involves interest payments, it increases the deficit. So anyone who tells you that we can fix the problem simply by raising the debt ceiling is an idiot or a con man. In fact, given roughly the same spending, and the same revenues, a year from now at this time we will have another $1.5 trillion deficit, and will therefore have to raise the debt ceiling by another $1.5 trillion.
So, if you are one of those who believes we can fix the problems by raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires (hereinafter called M&Bs), here are figures published by the IRS. Read them, and then draw your own conclusions.
-- The IRS reports that in 2008, 140,436 taxpayers reported incomes greater than $1 million but less than $1.5 million.
-- 59,469 reported incomes greater than $1.5 million, but less than $2 million.
-- 86,329 reported incomes greater than $2 million, but less than $5 million.
-- 21,390 reported incomes greater than $5 million, but less than $10 million.
-- 13,480 reported incomes in excess of $10,000,000.
If you add those numbers, you will find that in 2008 there were 321,000 U. S. taxpayers who reported incomes in excess of $1 million
The same report shows that those M&Bs paid $249,019,545,000 in federal income taxes, after all credits.The total number of taxpayers in 2008 was 90 million. Income tax they paid after, all credits, was just over $1 trillion. As such, 321,000 out of 90 million paid just under 25 percent of all federal income taxes paid in 2008. That means .3 percent of the taxpayers paid 25 percent of all federal income taxes. This year, America will have a $1.5 trillion deficit. That means expenses will exceed revenue by $1.5 trillion.
So what's the solution?
The Republicans say cut $1.5 trillion from this year's budget. The president demands "shared sacrifice." He wants M&Bs to pay their fair share. So what is it? In 2008, the M&Bs paid $250 billion in taxes.Was that "fair" then?
What if we doubled their taxes this year? What if the M&Bs were required to pay $500 billion this year. That would still leave us $1.25 trillion deficit. But, if their taxes were doubled, would they then be paying their "fair share?" Would that be enough "shared sacrifice?"
What if the M&Bs 2011 income tax was quadrupled? That would generate $.75 trillion in new revenues, and would leave us with a deficit of only $750 billion. Would that be their "fair share?" Would that be sufficient "shared sacrifice?"
In 2008, taxpayers -- other than the M&Bs -- paid roughly $.75 trillion in federal income taxes. If the millionaires and billionaires are going to have their taxes quadrupled to raise $.75 trillion in new taxes, perhaps the remaining 99.7 percent of taxpayers would be willing to have their taxes doubled to generate the other $.75 trillion necessary to balance the budget. Would that be "fair?" Would you be willing to "share the sacrifice" to that extent?
Of course, 51 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. If you would be willing to double what you pay, I am certain they would be willing to double, treble or even quadruple what they pay. I am, of course, not naive enough to think that Americans with taxable incomes of less than $1 million who actually pay taxes, really want to see their taxes doubled. So, if you actually pay taxes, and you don't want them doubled, how much more are you willing to pay to eliminate the deficit? Anything less than a 100 percent increase won't do it, even if taxes are quadrupled on the M&Bs.
And of course if you are only willing to pay an additional 10 percent, why is it "fair" that the M&Bs pay an additional 100 percent or 300 percent -- while 51 percent of the American people pay nothing? At what point does taxing the M&Bs become naked plunder?
The bottom line is this: if you quadruple the income tax the M&Bs pay, you will still have a $.75 trillion deficit. So how much more are you willing to pay to cover the balance?
By the way, as I finish this revision, the U. S. Debt Clock now reads $14,544,068,702,280. And it is 2:25 p.m.
Posted Online: Aug. 18, 2011, 7:55 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Buck Stops Here, or Does It?
President Harry S Truman had a little sign on his desk which said: "The Buck Stops Here!"
In his farewell address, he explained its meaning for anyone who didn't get it: "The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job:"
When I was in second grade in 1948, Sister Mary Margaret passed out a ballot.
We could vote for either Gov. Dewey or President Truman.The president got only two of 30 votes. One was mine. When President Truman won reelection, I felt a whole lot smarter than the Chicago Tribune. Its Nov. 3, 1948 banner headline, proclaimed: "Dewey Defeats Truman!"
But President Truman wasn't always right.
As a young man in 1922, he flirted with the Ku Klux Klan (although he never was initiated, and never attended a meeting). He also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments in his diary.
His 1946 proposal to draft coal miners into the army to end their strike, would cost him the labor vote today and his 1952 order to his secretary of commerce to seize control of the nation's steel mills, meant to insure a steady supply of steel to the armed forces fighting the Korean War, shocked many Americans. including a majority of the United States Supreme Court, which held that absent Congressional authorization, that the president -- though he was Commander in Chief -- lacked Constitutional power to nationalize an industry -- even in time of war.
Mr. Truman became an "accidental president" when FDR died in April of 1945.
From the day that Harry Truman took office, he came face to face with the "buck."
He had a choice.
He could either "pass the buck," or grapple with it. And whether you approve or disapprove of his decisions, he had the guts to do what he thought was right for America.
Barely four months after he took office, he was faced with the biggest decision any president had ever been forced to make. America had the atom bomb. Should he order it to be dropped on Japan? He did. On Aug. 6, 1945, 140,000 died in Hiroshima. On Aug. 9, 80,000 more were killed in Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on Aug. 14, 1945.
Mr. Truman knew the devastation the bombs would cause, but he also knew that if America tried to invade the Japanese home island that there would be as many as a million American casualties. Many have condemned President Truman for dropping the bombs. But Mr. Truman never backed down.
"I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."
Eleanor Roosevelt later said that President Truman had "made the only decision he could." The bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."
But that was only one of Mr. Truman's momentous decisions.
When The Soviet Union threatened to gobble up Greece and Turkey, and perhaps all of war-torn Europe, President Truman announced what has been called the Truman Doctrine: "the policy of the United States to support free people who (were) resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Truman Doctrine changed America's foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from detente to active containment.
Then to give teeth to his policy, Mr. Truman encouraged the U.S. Senate to approve the NATO treaty which said, "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
When economic chaos in postwar era portended a communist takeover of the European democracies, President Truman authorized implementation of the Marshall Plan.
When Russia tried to cut off Berlin from the West, President Truman ordered th the Berlin Airlift to break the Berlin Blockade, even though he could not be sure that Russia would not respond with military action.
In an effort to avoid further wars, President Truman backed the formation of the United Nations.
When Hubert Humphrey demanded a strong civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, Harry Truman embraced it, notwithstanding the fact that Strom Thurmond would bolt the convention, split the Democratic Party and run as a "Dixiecrat."
Then putting his "money were his mouth was," Harry Truman two weeks later, issued Executive Order 9981, which racially integrated the U.S. Armed Services -- knowing this would cost him the support of many in his party.
And then, overcoming his youthful anti-Semitic attitudes, Harry S. Truman, notwithstanding dire warnings of a potential Arab backlash, which might result in loss of access to Middle East oil, recognized the state of Israel in May of 1948 -- 11 minutes after Israel declared itself a nation!
And of course, when General Douglas MacArthur, one of America's greatest heroes, forgot who was commander-in-chief, Harry S Truman fired him, knowing that his decision would be wildly unpopular.
So why do I call myself the "last Truman Democrat?" Because Harry Truman had the guts to try to put the good of the country above partisan politics.
Were he president today, there'd be no sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stopped with George Bush."
Posted Online: Aug. 04, 2011, 10:35 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
In his farewell address, he explained its meaning for anyone who didn't get it: "The President -- whoever he is -- has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job:"
When I was in second grade in 1948, Sister Mary Margaret passed out a ballot.
We could vote for either Gov. Dewey or President Truman.The president got only two of 30 votes. One was mine. When President Truman won reelection, I felt a whole lot smarter than the Chicago Tribune. Its Nov. 3, 1948 banner headline, proclaimed: "Dewey Defeats Truman!"
But President Truman wasn't always right.
As a young man in 1922, he flirted with the Ku Klux Klan (although he never was initiated, and never attended a meeting). He also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments in his diary.
His 1946 proposal to draft coal miners into the army to end their strike, would cost him the labor vote today and his 1952 order to his secretary of commerce to seize control of the nation's steel mills, meant to insure a steady supply of steel to the armed forces fighting the Korean War, shocked many Americans. including a majority of the United States Supreme Court, which held that absent Congressional authorization, that the president -- though he was Commander in Chief -- lacked Constitutional power to nationalize an industry -- even in time of war.
Mr. Truman became an "accidental president" when FDR died in April of 1945.
From the day that Harry Truman took office, he came face to face with the "buck."
He had a choice.
He could either "pass the buck," or grapple with it. And whether you approve or disapprove of his decisions, he had the guts to do what he thought was right for America.
Barely four months after he took office, he was faced with the biggest decision any president had ever been forced to make. America had the atom bomb. Should he order it to be dropped on Japan? He did. On Aug. 6, 1945, 140,000 died in Hiroshima. On Aug. 9, 80,000 more were killed in Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on Aug. 14, 1945.
Mr. Truman knew the devastation the bombs would cause, but he also knew that if America tried to invade the Japanese home island that there would be as many as a million American casualties. Many have condemned President Truman for dropping the bombs. But Mr. Truman never backed down.
"I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war ... I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again."
Eleanor Roosevelt later said that President Truman had "made the only decision he could." The bomb's use was necessary "to avoid tremendous sacrifice of American lives."
But that was only one of Mr. Truman's momentous decisions.
When The Soviet Union threatened to gobble up Greece and Turkey, and perhaps all of war-torn Europe, President Truman announced what has been called the Truman Doctrine: "the policy of the United States to support free people who (were) resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Truman Doctrine changed America's foreign policy toward the Soviet Union from detente to active containment.
Then to give teeth to his policy, Mr. Truman encouraged the U.S. Senate to approve the NATO treaty which said, "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all."
When economic chaos in postwar era portended a communist takeover of the European democracies, President Truman authorized implementation of the Marshall Plan.
When Russia tried to cut off Berlin from the West, President Truman ordered th the Berlin Airlift to break the Berlin Blockade, even though he could not be sure that Russia would not respond with military action.
In an effort to avoid further wars, President Truman backed the formation of the United Nations.
When Hubert Humphrey demanded a strong civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, Harry Truman embraced it, notwithstanding the fact that Strom Thurmond would bolt the convention, split the Democratic Party and run as a "Dixiecrat."
Then putting his "money were his mouth was," Harry Truman two weeks later, issued Executive Order 9981, which racially integrated the U.S. Armed Services -- knowing this would cost him the support of many in his party.
And then, overcoming his youthful anti-Semitic attitudes, Harry S. Truman, notwithstanding dire warnings of a potential Arab backlash, which might result in loss of access to Middle East oil, recognized the state of Israel in May of 1948 -- 11 minutes after Israel declared itself a nation!
And of course, when General Douglas MacArthur, one of America's greatest heroes, forgot who was commander-in-chief, Harry S Truman fired him, knowing that his decision would be wildly unpopular.
So why do I call myself the "last Truman Democrat?" Because Harry Truman had the guts to try to put the good of the country above partisan politics.
Were he president today, there'd be no sign on his desk saying, "The Buck Stopped with George Bush."
Posted Online: Aug. 04, 2011, 10:35 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2011, John Donald O'Shea
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)