43 Comments

• 1. Gay NotGay  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:17 am

  I love you Mark (in a totally heterosexual… not homosexual way) Welcome back in a non-bush related blog.

• 2. Alex  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:05 am

  I never thought I’d see the day when Mark Noonan is agreeing with, of all people, Huey Long.

• 3. Magnum Serpentine  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:43 am

  I believe if anyone has an overall net worth value of 1 billion dollars or more they should be taxed 60% and if they have available cash of 1 billion dollars or more they should be taxed 85%

  Fair is Fair

• 4. OhioOrrin  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:47 am

  don’t kid yourself, the wealthy in BOTH parties exploit tax loopholes. the queen of mean, leona helmsley noted that taxes were only for the little people.

  I agree w Ben Stein when he said that he, being “rich”, SHOULD pay more in taxes because he was free to enjoy his wealth in an orderly, law enforcement society.

  otherwise the “poor” would jump his fence, kill him, & take what he owns.

• 5. Rana Quijotesca  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:00 am

  What would be interesting (and actually give this post some credibility) is if you found (freedom of information act) tax returns for wealthy democratic and Republican politicians and then compared which party pays a higher median percentage of their income in taxes.

  And yes, I agree with Ben Stein as well.

• 6. Bigfoot  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:25 am

  If the Dems really think that Bush’s “tax cut for the rich” is wrong, let them each calculate the difference between what they pay under the Bush tax cuts and what they would be paying had those cuts not been enacted, and give the difference to charity. Or set up a “tax me more” fund for the federal tax coffers, and send the difference there.

• 7. DougH  |  November 15th, 2007 at 9:03 am

  If there was ever a need for a flat tax it would be for the billionaires of the world. Tax them at flat rate of even 10% and we wouldn’t be concerned about fuding for socila security or health care

  As for taxing billionaires for 85% over 1 billion dollars, well that just shows that people hate the fact others can make that much money.

  Why should thye be punished for being able to make that much money….. just becuase you don’t

• 8. Almiranta  |  November 15th, 2007 at 9:52 am

  OK, first we need to address the issue that has the radical Left BSers so confused.

  Bush did not initiate a tax CUT. He initiated a tax RATE cut. This has baffled the simple-minded all along—how can you cut taxes and still take in more tax revenue? It just CONFUSED them.

  Tax RATE cut is a little longer, a little tougher to say, and I am as guilty as the next guy in calling it a tax CUT. But then I understand the difference.

  Mark is right—the Left wants to tax the productive. And the real underlying reason for promoting it is not really to benefit those who have less, but to indulge the envy and surliness of those who are so resentful of those who have more.

  When this country was moving into its greatness, a big part of that impetus was the American vision—-of looking at someone more successful and saying “I can do that, too” and then striving to match that success, if not exceed it.

  But much of America of today looks at someone more successful and instead of striving to equal that success it plots to drag that successful person down to the level of the resentful. They call this “leveling the playing field”.

  How this can possibly benefit the country eludes me. But the shift from aspiration and ambition to sullen resentment and the encacting of punitive measures against the more successful can’t bode well for a country.

  A couple of notes:

  OhioOrrin says “..otherwise the “poor” would jump his fence, kill him, & take what he owns.” Well, Orrin, aside from the ‘killing’ part, some are plotting to jump the fence and take much of what we own—they are called Democrats.

  And don’t forget, the “rich” ALREADY pay more taxes. The top 10% pay more than 45% oi all taxes paid.

  The estate which is savaged by the death tax has already been taxed. It was created out of after-tax money, and it has been paying taxes during its existence. Most of the “estates” which would be affected by the death tax are small business and farms and ranches. Liquid assets are almost always protected in some way, through trusts or other instruments.

  I live in farming/ranching country. I am from a farm family. I now own a ranch. And I see the devastating effects of the death tax every time I drive through the San Luis Valley, for instance, where heirs to family farms found the property appraised not at the value of agricultural property but at its “highest and best use” value, which is for development, and then had to either sell off a large chunk of the land to pay the taxes (paying, BTW, taxes on the proceeds of the sale as well) or find another way to raise the money. Too many sold off part of their water rights to expanding cities, and now the once-green and productive valley is largely desolate, dry and barren.

  I think that anyone who aspires to the feel-good left, which has a short cut to the higher moral ground merely by being FOR ‘helping people’, should be required to take a course in Unintended Consequences.

  Mark and Matt—you have had an ongoing thread about Media Bias—how about one on Unintended Consequences? You know, how Libs have pushed through something that sounded pretty warm and fuzzy on the surface and then strolled off, feeling all benevolent, while the Unintended Consequences piled up?

• 9. eric  |  November 15th, 2007 at 10:38 am

  As evidenced by his massive fortune, Mr. Buffett does not seem to make stupid decisions when it comes to his money and investments. Having spent a little time in law school (and unfortunately, some time learning about Federal taxation), it is very likely that Mr. Buffet’s fortune is shielded from the very tax he supports (e.g., via charitable organizations, living trusts, etc.). If he believes he should be taxed at a higher rate, the solution is actually quite simple: he should tax himself and voluntarily give a portion of his estate directly to the government.

• 10. Joe  |  November 15th, 2007 at 10:50 am

  The difference between those for the tax rate cut versus those against the tax rate cut is that those against it will gladly pay their extra 7% in taxes for the benefit of all.
  I would gladly pay a bit extra if my local public school system benefited and didn’t have to cut activities and be in the red. That just means kids get a better education and are more beneficial to the society when they grow up.
  I would gladly pay a bit extra in order to get the first responders better equipment and better pay. This only makes society better.
  I would gladly pay a bit extra to not have potholes that damage my car. Pay taxes or pay for car repairs.
  I would gladly pay a bit extra if it meant the overall healthcare system is improved. If everyone is more healthy, then my healthcare costs will decrease.

  Some are FOR the tax cuts just because it is their money and they want to keep it. To hell with society.

  I don’t begrudge anyone for making a PANTLOAD of money. Make all you want and good luck. All we are saying is that they someone making millions of dollars can afford to pay a bit extra for the benefit of those less fortunate.

  Maybe we wouldn’t have to fight for every last dollar for SCHIP or for the transporation bill among other things.

• 11. William Teach  |  November 15th, 2007 at 11:12 am

  It is very simple, so the libs will not understand. Make the tax rate the same across the board, somewhere in the range of 7-10%. No deductions, no specials, nothing. Everyone, including businesses, pay the same rate.

  However, if the libs want to complain about today’s rates, why don’t they just pony up to the bar and send in extra money? I would love to see a break down of how many people check the Mass. tax form box to pay extra. Do Kerry and Kennedy do that?

• 12. sbulka  |  November 15th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

  The bottom line is that in this country, we tax you differently depending on how you make your money. So if you make your money in dividends or capital gains, you pay far less than some ordinary w-2 employee, although I am not quite sure why the contribution from the ordinary employee is any less than the guy who has 2 million in some dividend distributing security.

  This is why I laugh when a guy like John Edwards talks about having to increase the sococial security cap so that the rich pay. Well, no, all those kinds of increases do is hit the hard workign american. Ordinary income over taxed on teh income tax level and in the scoial security scheme. Increasing the cap doesn’t impact guys like Edwards who make their money through investments. So the rich, like edwards, do truly get richer. I am sick and tired of every tax increase, whethe Dem or Rep initiated, that just targets W-2 employees. This is especially painful if you live in a high cost of living area like NY where your money clearly doesn’t go as far as it does in Iowa.

  I will vote for any candidate, Dem or Rep, who promises to change the system so we don’t tax people differently depending on how they earn their money.

• 13. LaMano  |  November 15th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

  The really funny part is when the Dims start talking about having to FUND a tax cut. I just shake my head; confiscating less from citizens is equated with having to generate federal funds as if it was some form of welfare.

• 14. bt  |  November 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

  Putting aside the ridiculous generalizations of what Dems or liberals really “want” when they call for taxing the rich, I have one very simple question. Where should the money come from?

  Under President Bush, tax rates were cut. Under President Bush, and with the full cooperation of the Republican led (at the time) congress, spending increased. And the simple fact is, we don’t have enough money to pay our bills. So we have 2 choices. Continue to deficit spend, and let China buy up all our debt. Or balance the budget. Someone has to pony up. If you guys think that this money should come from the lower and middle class, fine, but I think that is going to be tough to enforce. They have just as many expenses as “the rich”, but not as much money to meet those expenses.

  I agree that almost EVERYONE pays too much in taxes. But the money has to come from somewhere.

• 15. JUDGE NAUGHT  |  November 15th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

  Mark- are you advocating a Federal Property tax? Sitting up and taking notice isn’t very specific.

  However, I wuold like to have this debate on the “flat tax” so let’s all get out the big calculator and run some #’s
  First, would this tax be on income, sales, or property? Our current budget is around 2.5 trillion, and if we tear up our kids credit card, its closer to three if you include the “emercency supplemental” budget (the war). So in order to have a balance we need to generate three trillion in revenue.
  A flat tax by definition means no home mortgage interest deduction, no dependent tax deduction, no property tax deductions, no capital gain/loss tax or deduction,etc.
  State+local taxes would still apply so in Ca. we wuold still have to pay our 8.5 sales tax, property tax, etc.
  If we had a Fed sales tax would that include houses?cars? stocks+bonds? or only ipo.s, new cars, new homes. (In Ca. by the time you add up the sales taxes on a cars lifetime, it’s probabally 1/2 the purchase price. once when new, and every time it changes owners. (A fine revenue generator no one seems to notice.) So with stocks and bonds, every new owner would have to cough up sales tax putting the buyer in the red by whatrever % is required. Housing would have to be the same or new housing would become extinct. We can’t have a “new product” tax only, that would not be “flat” by definition.
  Then there’s the wholsale tax break. A truly flat tax would mean that every componenet that goes in a t.v. or nut and bolt in our cars would also be taxed and the final produst would be unaffordable. I don’t know how much total sales we generate by this method, maybe 100 trillion? If so then a %3 tax would be about right, but a car would likely be 100K for a Malibu-Mustang. Of course there would be no Federal gas tax, just the state+local.
  If you remove the financial sector, our%3 would start to go up into the %10+ range, finished products still unattainable by middle class. Keep the wholesale tax reduction, now we’re probabally loohing @ %20+. Add state and local and we’re @ %28.5 here in Ca., right about where we are now, only without home mortgage deductions, dependent deductions etc. My #’s are not accurate as to gross sales, but the%’s are the question. Any takers? I know, Iknow, I’m a dumb ass liberul who hasn’t got a clue so insult away, but make them different. How about— You’re to dumb to be a moron, you’re a lesson? That’s old too, so work on it.
  Someone else can make the “flat” income argument.

• 16. DougH  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

  I think the Judge is confused about the term flat tax….. and mixing up with a consumption tax.

  When referring to a flat tax, most people are meaning a flat income tax on a person’s gross earnings.

  Nothing to do with sales or any other taxes.

  And yes, I agree an dumbass liberal who takes a simple topic “Flat tax” and confuses it with a consumption tax.

• 17. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

  Finally a point on which we can agree totally; I am done with the AMT on principle because it was a backhanded attempt to tax productivity as you say. I would suggest the income tax be scrapped in favor of a consumption tax nationally of 8 to 10% on everything especially prescription medications. How many trillions a year does the US consumer spend again? This tax would net the Treasury just over $1 trillion in 2008. And for once a tax that covers all people equally the more you spend the more you pay and just how much would the government save on the dolorous death and departing of the IRS? Add to that a $1.25 per gallon environmental tax on gasoline and you would cover the bulk of a reasonable just less than 2 trillion dollar budget and that is without getting one cent from corporations which under my plan would be taxed at 1% of their gross profit.

• 18. Ricorun  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  Mark: You bring me a Democrat who is advocating a tax on the value of Clinton’s $1.7 million dollar New York estate, and then I’ll sit up an take notice.

  Pardon me for saying so, but a “$1.7 million dollar New York estate” sounds like an oxymoron. Where is this “estate” exactly?

  Start taxing them at, say, $17,000.00 per year into the Federal treasury just for owning that nifty house, and then you’ll have a “tax the rich” scheme which actually taxes rich people - a tax which causes money to be paid out of wealth, rather than out of income.

  A federal “wealth tax” eh? Actually, I’m guessing that would go over much bigger with the Dems than the Reps. And I’m surprised no one here has called you on it yet.

  And explain to me how the Clinton’s are tax-shelter beneficiaries. To tell you the truth, I don’t know anything about how they’re set up financially. But I think it’s safe to say it’s different than, say, the Rockefellers and Kennedys — or the Bushes, Mellons and DuPonts for that matter. I suspect the Clintons are probably much more similar to, say, the Cheneys.

  I agree with sbulka when he/she(?) says: I am sick and tired of every tax increase, whether Dem or Rep initiated, that just targets W-2 employees. That’s a problem. In a very real sense, it means that “wealth” is taxed at a lower rate than “productivity”. I mean if you’re in a position to take advantage of it it’s great. But is it fundamentally fair?

  I also don’t see how Mark’s argument relates to Clinton’s income on proceeds from his memoirs. Isn’t that income? And isn’t it taxed accordingly? You might dispute whether his memoirs are worth it, but apparently someone does. Lucky him. But it’s still income. And I don’t see where the “fraud” is.

  If they can be accused of fraud, so can I. I have made a lot of money on capital gains — more than I have made in actual employment endeavors over the last few years. And I’ve taken a much bigger tax hit because of the latter than the former. I think it’s wrong, but I’m not stupid (at least I try not to be). I play by the rules that exist even when I disagree with them. In a sense I believe it is better to live to fight another day. I’m patient.

  I was not in favor of the Iraq invasion, but once it appeared inevitable I bought a number of defense stocks (including but not limited to Halliburton). To me it was a no-brainer financially speaking. Likewise I invested in real estate. The original motivation was the ridiculously low interest rates in the face of growing demand. I kept them for a while even after it became apparent that the market was super-heated because of sub-prime lending. That one I hit just right. Do I feel bad for those that are trapped in the bubble? Absolutely. Would I have done anything differently? No. Although I thought I was right I wasn’t absolutely certain of it. Moreover, I was not involved in making the loans, nor was I in any position to affect those who were. I was just taking advantage of what I perceived as the absurdity. A few months ago Mark mentioned that he protested to his superiors about their dubious lending practices. He didn’t quit then, and hasn’t quit yet. I don’t blame him for that. Doing so would have been either stupid or incredibly courageous. Rarely are either rewarded if you’re not in a position to make the decisions. He registered his objections, but in the end it wasn’t his call. And it certainly wasn’t mine. Had it been within our ability, I presume both of us would have made different decisions. But in the end one has to deal with reality as it is no matter how adamantly one wishes it were different, and no matter how strenuously one works to change it.

• 19. Saskboy  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  Buffet made his point quite well on NBC that his 17.7% tax rate is unwanted in America, when workers pay closer to 30% taxes. Why would the percentage be so variable as to leave those who make the most, the smallest percentage tax burden?

• 20. JUDGE NAUGHT  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

  Hi DougH Really appreciate your in depth insult. Just what I would ecpect on this site, except leave the insults to the professionals. I’m sure you misunderstood the objest of the post. As I said at the beginning of my post, there are currently three concepts of the flat tax, consumption, (sales tax) income, (your example here?) and Marks new Federal Property tax,(One Ive never considered before but worth examining). At the end of my attempt @ reality, I asked someone else to make the “flat income tax” argument. I’m looking forward to an informing debate with real life #’s. Are you up to it? Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be a well reasoned response.

• 21. Robert  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:45 pm

  Mark, the “death tax” does NOT only affect the rich. Just this year my father died in a very sudden and tragic way. He was murdered. And although he was completely destitute at the time he was part heir to a family farm. It is a family farm that is an anchor to the whole family. It makes no money since farming is a completely dead profession these days and will not make much money if it is sold, at least for any one person. There are several heirs, but any one person’s cut will not be much at all. The farm is essentially a dead piece of ground. However, the state and the federal government want a 4.5% tax on the estate. Since the land is of sizeable acreage, the tax might be as much as 10 thousand dollars or more. For nothing. And my brother and I might have to come up with that money. I am currently working my way through grad school and have very little money and my brother only works not much more than a minimum wage job. Yet we might have to pay over 10 grand for taxes. For something that someone else, a brutal horrible murderer did. Is that fair?

  You Conservatives always talk about abortion as murder. I have seen REAL murder, brtual murder, someone beaten to death with a crowbar over 15 dollars and some beer. Don’t you tell me about murder.

  So, who does the death tax hurt? Everybody! The poor even moreso than the rich. Sure, you might say there are government programs which might help, but with Conservative policies there would be NO government funding for anyone - oh except for the war in Iraq and more money to big business.

  Mark, get your head out of the clouds and look at REAL life for a change. It is not so easy for everyone. Sometimes the government and big businesses hurt EVERYONE. And unfortunately, it seems like many Conservative policies only strengthen the rich and hurt the poor. look around you sometime.

  But you would rather blame everything on Liberals than take some responsibility yourself.

• 22. Ricorun  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:10 pm

  Robert, my most sincere condolences to you and your family about your dad. But I wonder what you’re talking about. If $10K represents 4.5% of the estate, that works out to $222K. If that’s true, I don’t think you’re getting pinched by estate taxes, I think you’re talking about probate. That’s a completely different thing. And if as you say the family farm is a family holding, didn’t you guys set up a living trust?

• 23. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:27 pm

  Sure, you might say there are government programs which might help, but with Conservative policies there would be NO government funding for anyone - oh except for the war in Iraq and more money to big business. - robert

  Robert,

  In the next statement you told Mark to get his head out of the couds.

  I am assuming you have factual evidence that conservatives want to eliminate all entitlement programs, right?

  If not, I might suggest you were the one with their head planted…….

• 24. DougH  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  Judge,

  Of course I’m up to the challenge… and the only people who refer flat tax referring to anything other than income tax rates are those who may not have looked up the definition.

  Definition
  “A system in which all levels of income are taxed at the same rate.”

  To save us both time and energy, here’s a good link from proponents of Flat taxes

  http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

  In recent history the main contries that have switched to a flat income tax rate are Eastern European countires which resulted in an increase in government revenues and in the economy

• 25. Mark Noonan  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:18 pm

  Robert,

  I suggest you read what I wrote with a bit more care before you comment on it. I’m not saying what you think I’m saying.

• 26. Mark Noonan  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

  Ricorun,

  I’m merely pointing out the absurdity of Democrat “tax the rich” plans - they don’t tax the actual rich, but only those who happen to have a high income at the moment. Income and wealth are not the same thing - just as income and profit are different things in business.

  I would prefer a flat tax on incomes - I consider that the most fair way to raise the necessary funds for our government; a flat tax because a progressive tax is an unjust punishment of people who just happen to make more money. Everyone pay, say, 15% and have done with it - make a dollar next year, pay 15 cents…make a million dollars, pay $150,000.00.

  What really irks me on this level is how you on the left side of the aisle so easily fall for “tax the rich” rhetoric, and how you never EVER take a look at the massive wealth of the Democrats who are advocating the tax which WILL NOT BE TAXED under their schemes. If you want class warfare taxation, then take the war to Kennedy, and ask him to give up JUST ONE of his estates in the name of socialised medicine.

• 27. JUDGE NAUGHT  |  November 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm

  Hi again Doug- Thanks for your info. he reason I’ve always heard it described as a “consumption tax” is to capture revenue from the
  “underground economy”, the people who don.t have legitimate incomes and don.t file or pay taxes. I can argue the income side of this too, but I’ve always heard advocates of it say that people who make under a certain amount would get a refund or some kind of adjustment, thus making it not “flat”. I look forward to this discussion a little later as right now I have six or seven taxable, capitalist things awaitning attention so I can drive my 50 miles home. Also, the Heritage Foundation are the same people who brought us GATT+NAFTA. They are very proud of their contribution to our society. I have to disagree, this is part of the race to the bottom, ask the Maytag employees about that. (Make that former employees) Gotta go…Hope to continue w/ this later.

• 28. Dasein Libsbane  |  November 15th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

  Rico,
  A “living trust” will not protect assets from a confiscatory death tax; it merely sets up a conservator to administer the assets. If the estate meets the requirements it is subject to probate. There is no inherent tax advantage to a living trust.

• 29. Tractatus  |  November 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  you never EVER take a look at the massive wealth of the Democrats who are advocating the tax which WILL NOT BE TAXED under their schemes. If

  And you never EVER look at the massive wealth of the Republicans who are advocating nice fat tax cuts for themselves and their big-biz buddies. So what’s your point?

  Speaking of tax cuts, I read an interesting quote about them a while ago:

  “Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.”

  Not the most original sentiment, sure. But surely it was said by some know-nothing liberal who hates America, right?

  Nope. It was said by Jim Nussle, director of the OMB. He continued to say: “There are those including myself who . . . in the passion of the argument have made statements — I think I even made a statement once — that tax relief did pay for itself.” Read all about it if you like (though I doubt you will, seeing as how it also contains the statement that “his is not a merely academic debate, although no serious academic, including Mr. Bush’s own economists, has argued that tax cuts produce enough additional economic growth to make up for lost revenue”). Or, if you prefer wallowing in ignorance, keep mindlessly repeating the mantra that “tax cuts work every time they’re tried.”

• 30. Ricorun  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

  Dasein: A “living trust” will not protect assets from a confiscatory death tax; it merely sets up a conservator to administer the assets. If the estate meets the requirements it is subject to probate. There is no inherent tax advantage to a living trust.

  I’m not sure I’m following you. I don’t disagree that a living trust immunizes anyone from inheritance taxes, if they apply. But it didn’t sound to me that they applied in Robert’s case. To make it simple, explain to me how I am inaccurate about what I said to Robert. If you want to expand on that, fine. But at least answer that question.

• 31. Ricorun  |  November 15th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

  Oh poo. I forgot about turning off the bold command. Sorry about that.

• 32. Almiranta  |  November 15th, 2007 at 9:14 pm

  Robert, I am sorry to hear of your father’s tragic death. I lost my husband very suddenly almost a year ago, and the event made me so grateful that I was able to be with him and share a peaceful passing, which made me even more aware of the tragedy of losing a loved one to a sudden and brutal death. I do feel for you.

  If Robert’s family farm happened to be in the path of development, it could easily be valued in the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. Never mind that the family would not want to sell it, would want to keep it as agricultural land, for any of a dozen valid reasons—the State could, and often does, assign an arbitrary value which it then imposes on the heirs, and inheritance taxes of many types are based on that value.

  Joe, it is certainly possible that SOME want tax cuts for purely selfish reasons, and DO feel “to hell with society”—just as SOME want high taxes so they can lie around on their fat butts and have someone else feed, clothe, and house them. There are extremes on both sides of any argument.

  But then there are those of us who feel that punitive tax rates which punish the productive end up hurting ALL of society.

  Have you ever gotten a paycheck from someone who had less money than you do? The simple fact is, some people will always have more than others, and that is OK. Wealth creates wealth. So if I have millions of dollars and create a business which supports several families, those families will not have as much money as I do. But they will have the ability to live in a house which they probably own (as do something like 70% of Americans) and their children will have clothes and medical insurance and be able to go schools, and proably those children will move on to better jobs than their parents have.

  When you hinder the accumulation of wealth and the retention of wealth, you hinder the expansion of the economy. If you have a sullen resentment for those who have more than you do, that his a personal thing, not an economic principle.

  I am working on a plan to start a new business. I have, so far, invested literally hundreds of hours in this plan, and a lot of money. By the time I get the business started, those numbers will have risen substantially. When the business is started, it will be financed by my own money, which is after-tax money. And I may very well lose it all.

  I’m not talking about putting in 40-hour weeks. As any small business owner knows, we work all day, nearly every day, and even days off are full of responsibilty.

  If the business succeeds, it will be a long long time before I earn back what I have invested, money-wise, and the time I have put in will never come back to me.

  So I DO believe that if I put out all this effort, use up all these precious hours, devote all this time and energy, use my after-tax dollars, and risk it all, then when /if I finally start to see a substantial return for all that I have invested, I should be able to keep most of it.

  You can assume I am a greedy bitch who will just lie around a pool drinking mojitos and ordering around the peons who serve me. Or you can assume that since I had the drive and ambition and creativity to start THIS business, and support who knows how many families, I might use my profits to start another business, or expand this one, thereby benefiting others along the way.

  There is more than one way to use money to help people. And I happen to think along the lines of “give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime’. So it’s a philosophical difference, and MY philosophy is that I prefer to use my money, however much it happens to be, to help others become self-sufficient.

• 33. Ricorun  |  November 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm

  Almiranta: I am working on a plan to start a new business. I have, so far, invested literally hundreds of hours in this plan, and a lot of money. By the time I get the business started, those numbers will have risen substantially. When the business is started, it will be financed by my own money, which is after-tax money. And I may very well lose it all. I’m not talking about putting in 40-hour weeks. As any small business owner knows, we work all day, nearly every day, and even days off are full of responsibilty.

  I hear you, because I’ve been there and done that. I’ve worked my ass off 12-14 hours a day, 7 days a week for years without stop, eating so many beans and peanut butter that I can’t look at either one anymore without getting sick. It’s a big risk, and you very well can lose everything. Even so, you’re taxed like everyone else — even more, because you’re paying both parts of social security taxes, although not employment security taxes (because it’s understood you don’t have any employment security — if you lose your “job” you’re SOL).

  But those were the bad old days. Now all I have to do is plunk down a bunch of money and reap the benefits. Sure, I can lose everything I invest (theoretically at least), but not more (unless I’ve invested on margins). In that sense, investing in the market is no different than investing in myself. However, these days I incur less taxes if I invest in the market than I would if I invest in myself — and the risk is the same. In other words, unless I think I have a real blockbuster idea, it’s worth it to me to sit on my ass and watch the ticker than it is to get off it. I mean it’s nice to have time to do stuff just for fun that I’ve never had time to do before. So I can’t really complain. But over all, it strikes me as a really stupid way to work things. It seems to me that just being reasonably smart and reasonably wealthy should not be such an obvious replacement for working hard.

• 34. JUDGE NAUGHT  |  November 15th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

  Hello again Doug. i hope you are still with me. On the “flat tax”, one other big reason for a consumption tax was to eliminate the IRS and their 90,000 plus pages of “code”.
  When you talk about a flat “income” tax, it becomes way difficult, at least for my pea brian! So please feel free to offer any points I may overlook in this short response,
  First define income. Second, should corporations pay income tax? Some say corps. don’t pay taxes, their customers do. Unless the customer is the govt–say military hardware, sattelites, I’m sure you can think of a dozen or more-offshore entities, etc. Then there’s the capital gains/loss issue. Do we tax/forgive at the same rate, or do we keep the discount rate currently in effect to encourage investment? Also, there is the tax free muni bond market which the very wealthy (Ross Perot for instance) and large institutional investors buy to finance public projects? How about the farmer- do we tax them on their gross reciepts, or allow deductions for equipment? Then, how about the mortgage/dependent deduction used to socially engineer our society? We have in effect a flat tax on adjusted gross income now, I think it’s %28-34 depending on … not exactly flat, but a %5 point range, excluding the %15 capital gain rate that our hedge fund managers enjoy. As a single taxpayer with declining mortgage intrest deductions, (been paying for 20 yrs now) I subsidise people who have children. for every child they have, they pay less while I subsidize schools, sewer systems, police+fire, libraries etc. I think we should pay people not to have babies, and charge more for each child to pay for the inevitable resources they will require. Water is already becomming a big issue, and will loom large in Ca. in the next ten years.
  Here’s a thought, how about we just divide up the three trillion needed by the 300 million people and then we pay $1000 each? I’ll even chip in an extra $500 towards the current nine trillion national debt!
  Looking forward to a response- I know you’re a thinker and I am sincere.
  OOPS- I think I ran out of zeros on my calculator, it should be 10,000 per person, am I right? In that case, I’ll keep the $500! Please tell me I’m wrong!!

• 35. Mark Noonan  |  November 16th, 2007 at 12:55 am

  Tract,

  You’re not understanding what I’m saying…man, this gets frustrating: I’m trying to tell you that the class warfare “tax the rich” stuff is a bogus dodge by rich Democrats to get liberals and leftists to support them.

• 36. What?  |  November 16th, 2007 at 2:10 am

  Mark writes,
  “I’m merely pointing out the absurdity of Democrat “tax the rich” plans - they don’t tax the actual rich, but only those who happen to have a high income at the moment. Income and wealth are not the same thing - just as income and profit are different things in business.”

  You ignore that most Democrats want to raise the capital gains tax. (Obama and Edwards for example) The wealthy of this country obtain most of their money from captial gains through investment. This includes Buffet and Clinton. The “money in the bank” is not in the bank but in the stock market and is being taxed at 15% thanks to Republicans, primarily Reagan.

  If you actually listened to what Buffet said you would understand know this. His complaint is that he is charged at a lower rate than his employees. He doesn’t have an income, he earns money through dividends and increases in the value of his stock portfolio.

• 37. What?  |  November 16th, 2007 at 2:16 am

  I correct myself. Divends are taxed as income while increases on investments are taxed at the current capital gains tax of 15%
  I think the point is still clear. This country values investment over income. It should be the other way around.

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  November 16th, 2007 at 2:24 am

  What,

  But even a capital gains tax really amounts to nothing more than a tax on income. If I invest a million dollars and make 100,000 off it, the tax will be on the 100,000 I made - my million is safe from the tax man. Move that capital gains tax up to 35%…I’ll still have 65,000 more than I started with and that on top of a million dollars.

  If you on the left want to tax the rich, as you say you do, then you simply MUST demand a tax on wealth…and if you make such a demand, you’ll find out mighty quick how two-faced your liberal heros are on the subject…Democrat leaders are all in favor of a tax on income, including capital gains income, but don’t you even think about eating into Ted or Hillary’s principal…oh, no; none of that. You see, Democrat leaders feel they are entitled to remain just as rich as they are now, because they deserve that sort of life style because they care about the poor, and they prove it by increases in taxes on “the rich”…except for themselves.

• 39. Rana Quijotesca  |  November 16th, 2007 at 2:40 am

  Let me point something out…

  REDUCING TAX RATES DOES NOT NECESSARILY INCREASE REVENUES!!!!!!!!

  From Andrew Samwick (responding to Bush’s claims that his tax cuts spawned record revenues):

  You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

  Just so you know… Mr. Samwick is the former Chief Economist on Bush’s Council of Economic advisers (2003-2004).

  That statement leads me to another thing that I wanted to point out…

  CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!!!!!

  Honestly, anyone who sticks their thumb up their ass and extols the infinite virtue of indefinitely lowering tax rates (considering most sane economists put us on the left side of the Laffer Curve) is an idiot either by accident or on purpose…

• 40. What?  |  November 16th, 2007 at 2:47 am

  Amazingly Mark,
  I stumbled on a point that disproves your point.
  You claim wealthy don’t have income but actually they do in the form of dividends.

  If we raise the income tax rate on the wealthy they will be paying a larger amount on these dividends, which even you must admit is a large source of their wealth. Money generates money. So using your Bill Clinton example, say Bill makes $20M on a book deal. By raisning his income tax you deny him a large portion of his advancment for the book but also you tax any income he earns after he invests the fee.

  I guess I don’t understand what you mean by principal and wealth as most wealth today is not held in land but in portfolios.
  How would you tax “wealth.”
  Ironically, the estate tax is considered a tax that reduces wealth in that it deprives one’s heirs of a large portion of the capital that maintained the decedent’s wealth in life.

  Also, given the size and location of the Clinton’s home, I am quite sure they pay property taxes that come close to $17,000. That is a drop in the bucket.

• 41. Free Lotto Winnings!! &ra&hellip  |  November 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am

  [...] Sheldon Liber wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThink of it like this - if you were to win the lottery for $25 million and Uncle Sam, et al, nailed you for $10 million, you’d still be pleased as punch about the $15 million you’ve got which cannot be further taxed as income. … [...]

• 42. Jay Gaultieri  |  November 18th, 2007 at 11:00 pm

  Some of these fatcat CEOS who are now losing their jobs gets their taxes paid on their golden parachute bonuses. That means a fatcat gets a $100 million bonus and gets an extra $40 mil in income because the taxes are paid. That $40 mil income gets another $16 mil in taxes paid which means around another $6.5 mil in taxes paid to the point where it all costs the corporation $180 million dollars for that $100 million bonus paid to someone who made a company lose money.

• 43. goijewat&hellip  |  January 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm

  goijewat

  goijewat