Funny But True

Exercising when you are cold (like slapping on the iPod and dancing yourself crazing, with no coat, in the dark, in the middle of the back yard at 2 a.m.) burns twice as many calories than if you were not cold.


A Puffer Fish can hold more water (in relation to its body mass) in its mouth than any other fish.  (Courtesy of the 11 yr. old marine biologist.)


If you haven't painted in years, and you suddenly go out and buy paints and canvasses, you will stare at them for days before you actually touch them for fear you will find out you don't know how to paint anymore.  I'm getting closer to it.  I'm not sure, but I think I am.


I am staring at them right now .....

It Takes A Country

In the realm of political debate, I hear so many people complain about how big government is and how it should do less for people.  They think all the government is doing is giving money to people who are too lazy to help themselves.  They judge people without knowing a thing about them; what they have been through and fought through.  They are labeled lazy simply because they get assistance of some kind, whether it be food stamps, cash assistance or healthcare.

It has always been the the response of such people that it should be left to churches and the private sector to see to helping these people.  The truth is they don't.  Not in the way they should.  Not in the way they could.  They hand pick those they are willing to help, and some will only help you if you vow to become an active member of their religion, and that means showing up every week for church.  For some that might work just fine, but what if you are a Catholic getting help from the Jehovah's witnesses, or a Buddhist getting help from a Catholic church.  And, if the government didn't help people, there would be millions who fall through the cracks, that don't get the help they need.  Our government can send billions to other countries to help them with poverty, but for some reason it has become despicable to help people in our own country.  I have heard some people say the government needs to help our own people instead of giving so much to immigrants, and yet in the same breath, that people don't have jobs because they are lazy.  Where in the Bible does it say you should only help people who are of your own faith?  Is that what Jesus did?  Yes, I know it says somewhere in the Bible, "God helps those who helps themselves", but it also says, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'  People want God in their government when it suits them, but they went to forget about him when it doesn't.

People in hundreds of different situations need help for hundreds of different reasons.  Unless you are privy to someone's private life, don't judge them for it.  I think there is something about that in the Bible, too.  People need to quit thinking it is beneath them to help someone by way of the government, because they can't pick and choose who they help.  Yes, there will always be people who will take advantage of any system of help, but the majority of people shelve their pride because they have no choice but to ask for help, and they don't do it because they are lazy.  Some would rather die than ask for help.  People lose their jobs and their houses and their families and a lot of times its through no fault of their own.  What is so wrong about collectively helping people who need it?  I wonder sometimes if people were this way during The Great Depression; if it was so easy to look the other way and say, "its not my problem".

I'm not a Socialist.  If you want to call me a 'tree hugger' or a liberal, then I am glad to accept that title.  But really, I'm just a human being.

(If this wanders a little, sorry, I have been awake too many hours)

We Are All At Fault

                                      My nephew, Brian 


There was a time in this country when family was the center of all that was, it was everything.  'Was' being the operative word.  Family knew you better than anyone else.  Making sure you knew your manners was one of your mother's main objectives.  Everyone at the table every night at the same time for dinner was something you didn't stray from unless you were dying.  Having dinner at a friend's house wasn't something you did every day, you did it on rare occasions.  Homework was done without you having to be asked because you knew if you didn't want privileges taken away, you kept your grades up.  People actually hand wrote letters in cursive and sent them through the mail on a regular basis.  Really they did, I'm not lying.  Kids didn't have their own cars when they got their licence, and if they did, it certainly wasn't new.


It seems like what we gained with technology, we lost socially.  First there were computers that were nothing more than glorified typewriters, but damn they were cool.  We thought playing text games were coolest thing ever. No pictures, no sound, just words and commands.  Pagers came along and it was great that people could make contact no matter where you were or what you were doing.  They paged you and you called.  It was a life saver if you had an emergency and needed someone.  It was later when pagers became cell phones and computers opened the world to us, that we began to isolate ourselves from each other.  People now call you anytime they want, and if we have a cell phone we answer it just to be sure we aren't missing anything.  In the old days (damn, I never thought I would use that phrase), we actually had down time.  Now, we constantly have phones in our hands, whether we are talking on them or texting.  Time we used to spend with family, is now spent on the computer in isolation.  Kids don't play outside anymore, they play on computers.They don't climb trees, or build forts just to tear them down and build them again somewhere else.  There are no more conversations over the inner table because everyone has a different schedule.  We wrapped ourselves in technology and lost sight of what was most important.  


When we quit watching, when we quit talking to each other, the world spun out of control without our realizing.  When we quit watching, we forgot about the wars that our people were fighting.  I don't think the people who are fighting in these wars for us were doing it so we could play on computers and ignore the fact that our country was spinning out of control while they were brave enough to do it.  When we quit watching new laws were being made and new bills were getting passed.   We were blissfully ignorant of it all.  Okay, some of us knew, some of us were aware, but were we putting all those pieces together?  Were we so committed to inspecting each piece that we lost sight of the tragic picture they were creating?  


What kind of mess are our the troops coming home to, and didn't we owe it to them to take care of things here while they were over there fighting?  Did you know it takes a year and a half for a soldier to get a medical discharge?  A year and a half of sitting around and waiting for papers to be shuffled around.  This problem has persisted for years. Did you know that while they are waiting for those medical discharges, they can't go to school.  They are losing their homes and becoming homeless.  Many of them need help but are too proud to ask for it.  


So, what are the rest of us going to do about it?  What are we going to do to help them return to some semblance of normalcy so that the families they have dreamed of returning to, don't fall apart?  They deserve to have that picture of what family used to be in order to have a safe place to fall when they come home.

I Think I Might Be an Interior Designer When I Grow Up ... Or Not

When my parents asked me to gather some information for having hardwood floors put in the living room and hall, I didnt' realize how much you actually had to know about hardwood floors to make a good choice.  They don't just want hardwood floors, they want engineered hardwood floors, because engineered floors are more stable.  Engineered floors are made by cross layering wood with a hardwood 'wear' layer on top. They won't buckle and cup and  get gaps between the boards from shrinking and swelling.  You can also install them as a floating floor (doesn't require gluing or nailing) that snaps together. I learned that from the DIY network.  


Two weeks ago, I went online, found some places to get samples, brought them home and a decision was made.  It's not easy to find a color that bridges the gap between what was installed in the bedrooms fifty years ago, and the 50 yr. old paneling my dad refuses to remove from the fireplace wall in the living room. Something kept nagging at me, it was all too easy.  So, silly me, went online and researched the company I had gotten samples from, and when I googled their customer complaints decided that, umm, no, that wasn't the company for us.  


I read and read and read information on engineered floors.  How they are made, what widths they come in, what the thickness of the wear layer should be, etc., etc. and etc.  I talked to a home re-modeler I know in Texas (he installs a lot of floors) who told me which brands to stay away from if I didn't want a box of 'chicklets' (shorter pieces of wood that are good for saving trees, but make for a really inconsistent looking floor.  My brother-in-law was kind enough to send me information from the Consumer Reports website, because even though we have a subscription to their magazine you actually have to pay EXTRA to look the stuff up on the website.  There is something seriously fucking wrong with that, Consumer Reports! 


With my new found knowledge I figured it would be a piece of cake to find the right floor.  WRONG!  If I found the right color, it didn't come in the right width, the wear layer wasn't think enough or it wasn't suitable for a floating floor.  Though my Dad-the-retired-carpenter didn't know what a floating floor was until I explained it, but now he has to have one as it will make replacing any damaged boards easier.  I went to the place that carries the floor I want to show them for a sample, but they were closed.  Evidently, people don't buy floors on Sundays.


Of course, while new floors are going in the walls might as well get painted at the same time.  My mom is stuck at home in a wheelchair for now, so that means bringing home a million (I am not exaggerating) color cards so she can choose colors for the living room and hallway, kitchen and dining room, the main bathroom and my dad's room.  Next in line is finding a replacement for the dishwasher that quit working last week, an electrician to upgrade the wiring, and possibly a gas fireplace to replace the fire burning one and a gas stove to replace the electric.  Since Dad doesn't know about the last two, I might be saved from doing those.


If people actually get paid to do this for a living, I hope they get paid an awful lot of money for it.  If they do, I might be joining them assuming they haven't slipped me in to a crisp white, straight jacket and thrown me in a padded room by the time its all done.

The Art of Silence

A few years ago someone recommended I read Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.  I have to admit that reading a book about a nine year old boy who lost his father in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, was not all that appealing to me.  I said I would read it, but it sounded incredibly depressing.  After months of asking me if I had read the book, I finally broke down and did it.  The author, Jonathan Safran Foer, had placed the first chapter online on The Project Museum site. so I started there.  If I was going to want to slit my wrist after chapter one, chapter one was all I was going to read.  I read the first chapter and was hooked, so I got the book.  Its one of the top three, best books I have ever read.  


The main part of the story of this nine year old boy who finds a key hidden in in his father's closet,, and the extremes he will go to in order to find the lock to which it belongs.  You would swear you were actually inside the head of a nine year old boy, and it wasn't nearly as depressing as I thought it would be.  The critics say it is more like a 28 yr old in the mind of a nine year old, but if you have ever known any kids who love to learn, you will know otherwise.


While the story of Oskar is amazing, there is the quietly profound story of Oskar's grandparents.  Two people who survived the Holocaust in different places and ways, and came together afterward.  A wife made hard and stubborn by her own fear of everything, and a man who feels powerless to help her.  A man who slowly loses his ability to speak and finds comfort in that silence, no matter how much he is misunderstood.


Suffice it to say that it is a great book.  The kind that makes you think about your own life, and who you are; who you want to be.  It makes you consider what you are willing to say or not say, and why.  Whether you are willing to say the things you could or should say when needed, or if you are willing to accumulate forty years of notebooks with the things you wish you had said when you should have said them.


Read the book before the movie comes out next year.  The written word is far richer than any good movie.  If you want to check out the first chapter you can catch it here.

Race In America

This one has been on my mind all day, so I figured I better get it out of my system


I remember when I was about 10 yrs old and my Dad's mom died.  She lived in Hammond and we went there on weekends for my dad to fix up the house to sell.  Me and my brother would play outside but we weren't aloud to leave the yard.  There was a little black girl that lived next door and we were talking through the fence when my dad came out and told me I wasn't aloud to play with her.  That was the first time I remember anyone drawing attention to the color of someone's skin to me.  


Funny thing about kids is, they just don't care about such things until someone decides they have to teach them differently.  Just because they are kids, doesn't make them wrong. To this day I still cannot understand why people have to make such a big deal about the color of someone's skin.  No one gets to choose it, it is simply given to you.  You don't get to choose the country you are born into, you don't get to choose the family you are born into, and you don't get to chose the color of your hair, eyes or skin.  So why do people discriminate based on such things?  I would say it was really juvenile, but kids don't care. 


I learned about a lot of black people in our country's history, when they still actually taught you the truth of your country's history.  People who risked their lives just to be treated like everyone else.  A lot of people lost their lives unnecessarily so that black people could be treated the same as everyone else.  Its not something they should have had to fight for, it should have been common sense to anybody who read the Bible.  But it wasn't.  It still isn't.


I thought our country had made great strides in the years following the Civil Rights movement. but I was terribly disillusioned.  In 2008, I was bored, out of a job and chose to work as a volunteer for a Presidential campaign.  For once I was going to stand up for something I believed in.  What I learned was racism is alive and well in America, people are just a little more conscious of hiding it, or at least they were then.  Never in a hundred years would I have ever thought that a black union worker would walk up to a house in my hometown, and have a gun put in his face for knocking on someone's door.  These were some of the nicest, non-threatening guys I had ever met and I was embarrassed by the way they were treated.  Cussed out and threatened because someone didn't like the color of their skin.


Seems the longer we have a black President the more people decide it is no longer necessary to hide the way they feel about that.  The office he holds is supposed to afford him a certain amount of respect from Congressmen, Senators and the people of this country.  Yes, we will always point out their faults and we will always argue the politics of the decisions that are made. What gets done and what doesn't, and how it affects the country. Yes, some people will use unflattering names.  But for some silly reason, I expected better from people in public office.  Oh, they don't come out and say it, because that would just be stupid, but its not real hard to read between the lines of some of them.


I am not perfect, nor do I expect anyone else to be.  I do however expect my fellow Americans to treat ALL Americans the same, not just the ones who have skin color they can live with.  No one gets to claim to be better than anyone else by virtue of the color of their skin.


What I know now, is that we can't be proud that we elected a black man as President.  Even if Hillary had been elected, would could have been proud we elected a woman.  I don't think Hillary would have been treated this way, and if she were, I would be saying something about that as well.  We could have been proud that we had caught up with the rest of the world where these issues are concerned.  But alas, we have allowed those people who are so impressed with the color of their skin to throw us right back into the 60's.  Thanks America for making me proud.

Something to Think About

“I don't know if I continue, even today, always liking myself. But what I learned to do many years ago was to forgive myself. It is very important for every human being to forgive herself or himself because if you live, you will make mistakes- it is inevitable. But once you do and you see the mistake, then you forgive yourself and say, 'well, if I'd known better I'd have done better,' that's all. So you say to people who you think you may have injured, 'I'm sorry,' and then you say to yourself, 'I'm sorry.' If we all hold on to the mistake, we can't see our own glory in the mirror because we have the mistake between our faces and the mirror; we can't see what we're capable of being. You can ask forgiveness of others, but in the end the real forgiveness is in one's own self. I think that young men and women are so caught by the way they see themselves. Now mind you. When a larger society sees them as unattractive, as threats, as too black or too white or too poor or too fat or too thin or too sexual or too asexual, that's rough. But you can overcome that. The real difficulty is to overcome how you think about yourself. If we don't have that we never grow, we never learn, and sure as hell we should never teach.”

Maya Angelou

10 Things I Learned Today

1. Even though the internet told me Staples had 12 sheets of magnetic paper for $15.99, it lied.  They only had 4 sheets for $9.99.
2. 4 sheets of magnetic paper was not worth the 2 1/2 hrs it took to go to 5 different places to find it.  People, carry what I need!
3. When putting a dry wall anchor in the wall, I will find the stud every time.
4. Some people will complain no matter how much you do for them.
5. My mother's guilt trips do not work on me any more  :)
6. You can have a remarkable amount of energy on 2 hrs of sleep.
7. An imaging technician can love to tell you 25 reasons her female co-workers are "fucking lazy bitches" while she is doing a procedure.  Norma, thanks for cracking me up while you crammed that ultrasound looking into my blocked vein.  She took the time to show me the screen and explain as she went along.  This was sure to piss off the "fucking lazy bitches since they kept calling her on the phone she never answered while she was doing a procedure.
8. There are still some places where you can fill out paperwork for one doctor, have blood drawn and get a doppler, and still be out of there in less than an hour.
9. You son spilling your Aragan oil can make for a really slippery floor.
10. 11 yr olds can still have really bad aim

And , yes, I am still fucking awsome  :)

And Now For Something Completely Different ....

Therapy can be a great thing.   Finally figured out why I really suck at relationships. Nope, not going out to find one.  Going to sit with this for awhile and work it out.  I just got back the biggest part of my sanity, I'd like to keep it.  lol

I am fucking awesome  :)

The People You Meet (A Politics Free Post)

The last couple of days I have been thinking about all the people I have met online, and the diversity in cultures and personalities.  If you met them outside the computer, would they be the same?  Would you?  Would they be what you expected?    Would we all focus on what we had in common, or would we focus on our differences?  If you really thought about those questions, would you know the answers?


Do you treat people the same online as you would if they were in front of you?  I know I used to be able to say I did.  Its not an easy thing to admit, but I know over the last year or so when I have been sick, stressed out and lost in my own head, I lost sight of that question.  I treated some people more harshly than they deserved.  Sometimes they did deserve it, but I didn't handle it as well as I would have if they were in front of me.  Sometimes I have failed to pay enough attention to what was said, or more importantly to what wasn't.  You learn to 'read' the people you know well, and there were times when I was totally oblivious to their need to be heard.  Some have understood, and some haven't.  Either way I have learned from it.


Funny thing about relationships online, all relationships,  is that unless you use a cam you miss the subtleties of talking to someone in person.  You can't look them in the eye, you can't look at their face and see if they are taking what you say the way you meant it, or if you are understanding what they say the way they meant.  You miss the inflections in their voice that tell you those things, too.   Sometimes you misunderstand people, and they misunderstand you.


But, for the most part, we navigate our way through it.  We meet people we wouldn't otherwise meet, or given a chance if we met them on the street.  We have more in common, than not.  We learn about, and from each other.  If you are going through something, chances are someone you know has been through it, too.  People who are eager to share information.  They share in the successes, and when something goes terribly wrong, you find you have friends who will hold you up when you can't stand on your own two feet, and they are happy to do it.  There but for the grace of God, and all that.  


For every bad thing that can happen on the internet, there is something good to balance it out. For people who can't get out of their homes, there is a whole internet of communities so they don't have to feel so alone. The communities we create online can be as important, or more important than the ones we have away from the computer.  If we're lucky, we meet people who change our lives.  I know I have.  If you are really smart,  you tell them.  Trust me, you don't want the regret of not recognizing it until it is too late.


This is for all my online friends, especially  the one I didn't appreciate as much as I should have.

And, For Those Who Think I Don't Do My Research Before I Post

April 13th, 2011 DAVID CAY JOHNSTON | Cover Story

 

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

ILLUSTRATION: berkleyillustration.etsy.com

282 Comments

      

Tags: Taxes

 

SHAREPRINTCOMMENTFONT SIZERATE

Related content

Green Machine

Related to:Taxes

For three decades we have conducted a massive economic experiment, testing a theory known as supply-side economics. The theory goes like this: Lower tax rates will encourage more investment, which in turn will mean more jobs and greater prosperity—so much so that tax revenues will go up, despite lower rates. The late Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who wanted to shut down public parks because he considered them socialism, promoted this strategy. Ronald Reagan embraced Friedman’s ideas and made them into policy when he was elected president in 1980.

For the past decade, we have doubled down on this theory of supply-side economics with the tax cuts sponsored by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, which President Obama has agreed to continue for two years.

You would think that whether this grand experiment worked would be settled after three decades. You would think the practitioners of the dismal science of economics would look at their demand curves and the data on incomes and taxes and pronounce a verdict, the way Galileo and Copernicus did when they showed that geocentrism was a fantasy because Earth revolves around the sun (known as heliocentrism). But economics is not like that. It is not like physics with its laws and arithmetic with its absolute values. 

Tax policy is something the framers left to politics. And in politics, the facts often matter less than who has the biggest bullhorn.

The Mad Men who once ran campaigns featuring doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking are now busy marketing the dogma that tax cuts mean broad prosperity, no matter what the facts show. 

As millions of Americans prepare to file their annual taxes, they do so in an environment of media-perpetuated tax myths. Here are a few points about taxes and the economy that you may not know, to consider as you prepare to file your taxes. (All figures are inflation-adjusted.)

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: AUTHOR ANALYSIS OF SAEZ & PIKETTY TABLE A6; 2008 DOLLARS

1. Poor Americans do pay taxes.

Gretchen Carlson, the Fox News host, said last year “47 percent of Americans don’t pay any taxes.” John McCain and Sarah Palin both said similar things during the 2008 campaign about the bottom half of Americans.

Ari Fleischer, the former Bush White House spokesman, once said “50 percent of the country gets benefits without paying for them.”

Actually, they pay lots of taxes—just not lots of federal income taxes.

Data from the Tax Foundation show that in 2008, the average income for the bottom half of taxpayers was $15,300.

This year the first $9,350 of income is exempt from taxes for singles and $18,700 for married couples, just slightly more than in 2008. That means millions of the poor do not make enough to owe income taxes.

But they still pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes. Between gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes and other taxes, no one lives tax-free in America.

When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: MEDICARE TAX DATABASE; CENSUS

2. The wealthiest Americans don’t carry the burden.

This is one of those oft-used canards. Sen. Rand Paul, the tea party favorite from Kentucky, told David Letterman recently that “the wealthy do pay most of the taxes in this country.”

The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.

It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners.  That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE TAX DATABASE

3. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes.

The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.

(By the way, during seven of the eight George W. Bush years, the IRS report on the top 400 taxpayers was labeled a state secret, a policy that the Obama administration overturned almost instantly after his inauguration.)

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: AUTHOR CALCULATIONS FROM IRS

4. Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all.

John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.

Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.

In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income—not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.

The Republicans and a key Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, fought to keep the tax rate on hedge-fund managers at 15 percent, arguing that the profits from hedge funds should be considered capital gains, not ordinary income, which got a lot of attention in the news.

What the news media missed is that hedge-fund managers don’t even pay 15 percent. At least, not currently. So long as they leave their money, known as “carried interest,” in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be decades from now for younger managers. How do these hedge-fund managers get money in the meantime? By borrowing against the carried interest, often at absurdly low rates—currently about 2 percent.

Lots of other people live tax-free, too. I have Donald Trump’s tax records for four years early in his career. He paid no taxes for two of those years. Big real-estate investors enjoy tax-free living under a 1993 law President Clinton signed. It lets “professional” real-estate investors use paper losses like depreciation on their buildings against any cash income, even if they end up with negative incomes like Trump.

Frank and Jamie McCourt, who own the Los Angeles Dodgers, have not paid any income taxes since at least 2004, their divorce case revealed. Yet they spent $45 million one year alone. How? They just borrowed against Dodger ticket revenue and other assets. To the IRS, they look like paupers. 

In Wisconsin, Terrence Wall, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010, paid no income taxes on as much as $14 million of recent income, his disclosure forms showed. Asked about his living tax-free while working people pay taxes, he had a simple response: Everyone should pay less.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: AUTHOR CALCULATIONS FROM IRS

5. And (surprise!) since Reagan, only the wealthy have gained significant income.

The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and similar conservative marketing organizations tell us relentlessly that lower tax rates will make us all better off.

“When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase,” according to Daniel J. Mitchell, an economist at Heritage until he joined Cato. He says that supply-side economics is “the simple notion that lower tax rates will boost work, saving, investment and entrepreneurship.”

When Reagan was elected president, the top marginal tax rate (the tax rate paid on the last dollar of income earned) was 70 percent. He cut it to 50 percent and then 28 percent starting in 1987. It was raised by George H.W. Bush and Clinton, and then cut by George W. Bush. The top rate is now 35 percent. 

Since 1980, when Reagan won the presidency promising prosperity through tax cuts, the average income of the vast majority—the bottom 90 percent of Americans—has increased a meager $303, or 1 percent. Put another way, for each dollar people in the vast majority made in 1980, in 2008 their income was up to $1.01.

Those at the top did better. The top 1 percent’s average income more than doubled to $1.1 million, according to an analysis of tax data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. The really rich, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, each enjoyed almost $4 in 2008 for each dollar in 1980.  

The top 300,000 Americans now enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million, the data show.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: MARTIN SULLIVAN, TAX ANALYSTS ECONOMIST, FROM DATA AT BEA.GOV

6. When it comes to corporations, the story is much the same—less taxes.

Corporate profits in 2008, the latest year for which data are available, were $1,830 billion, up almost 12 percent from $1,638.7 billion in 2000. Yet, even though corporate tax rates have not been cut, corporate income-tax revenues fell to $230 billion from $249 billion—an 8 percent decline, thanks to a number of loopholes. The official 2010 profit numbers are not added up and released by the government, but the amount paid in corporate taxes is: In 2010 they fell further, to $191 billion—a decline of more than 23 percent compared with 2000.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: IRS

7. Some corporate tax breaks destroy jobs.

Despite all the noise that America has the world’s second-highest corporate tax rate, the actual taxes paid by corporations are falling because of the growing number of loopholes and companies shifting profits to tax havens like the Cayman Islands.

And right now America’s corporations are sitting on close to $2 trillion in cash that is not being used to build factories, create jobs or anything else, but acts as an insurance policy for managers unwilling to take the risk of actually building the businesses they are paid so well to run. That cash hoard, by the way, works out to nearly $13,000 per taxpaying household.

A corporate tax rate that is too low actually destroys jobs. That’s because a higher tax rate encourages businesses (who don’t want to pay taxes) to keep the profits in the business and reinvest, rather than pull them out as profits and have to pay high taxes.

The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which passed with bipartisan support, allowed more than 800 companies to bring profits that were untaxed but overseas back to the United States. Instead of paying the usual 35 percent tax, the companies paid just 5.25 percent.

The companies said bringing the money home—“repatriating” it, they called it—would mean lots of jobs. Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican, put the figure at 660,000 new jobs. 

Pfizer, the drug company, was the biggest beneficiary. It brought home $37 billion, saving $11 billion in taxes. Almost immediately it started firing people. Since the law took effect, Pfizer has let 40,000 workers go. In all, it appears that at least 100,000 jobs were destroyed.

Now Congressional Republicans and some Democrats are gearing up again to pass another tax holiday, promoting a new Jobs Creation Act. It would affect 10 times as much money as the 2004 law. 

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: IRS TABLE 1.4 IN 2008 DOLLARS

8. Republicans like taxes too.

President Reagan signed into law 11 tax increases, targeted at people down the income ladder. His administration and the Washington press corps called the increases “revenue enhancers.” Reagan raised Social Security taxes so high that by the end of 2008, the government had collected more than $2 trillion in surplus tax.

George W. Bush signed a tax increase, too, in 2006, despite his written ironclad pledge never to raise taxes on anyone. It raised taxes on teenagers by requiring kids up to age 17, who earned money, to pay taxes at their parents’ tax rate, which would almost always be higher than the rate they would otherwise pay. It was a story that ran buried inside The New York Times one Sunday, but nowhere else.

In fact, thanks to Republicans, one in three Americans will pay higher taxes this year than they did last year.

First, some history. In 2009, President Obama pushed his own tax cut—for the working class. He persuaded Congress to enact the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. Over the two years 2009 and 2010, it saved single workers up to $800 and married heterosexual couples up to $1,600, even if only one spouse worked. The top 5 percent or so of taxpayers were denied this tax break.

The Obama administration called it “the biggest middle-class tax cut” ever. Yet last December the Republicans, poised to regain control of the House of Representatives, killed Obama’s Making Work Pay Credit while extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years—a policy Obama agreed to. 

By doing so, Congressional Republican leaders increased taxes on a third of Americans, virtually all of them the working poor, this year.

As a result, of the 155 million households in the tax system, 51 million will pay an average of $129 more this year. That is $6.6 billion in higher taxes for the working poor, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated. 

In addition, the Republicans changed the rate of workers’ FICA contributions, which finances half of Social Security. The result:

If you are single and make less than $20,000, or married and less than $40,000, you lose under this plan. But the top 5 percent, people who make more than $106,800, will save $2,136 ($4,272 for two-career couples).

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCE: MEDICARE TAX DATABASE; CENSUS.GOV

9. Other countries do it better. 

We measure our economic progress, and our elected leaders debate tax policy, in terms of a crude measure known as gross domestic product. The way the official statistics are put together, each dollar spent buying solar energy equipment counts the same as each dollar spent investigating murders.

We do not give any measure of value to time spent rearing children or growing our own vegetables or to time off for leisure and community service. 

And we do not measure the economic damage done by shocks, such as losing a job, which means not only loss of income and depletion of savings, but loss of health insurance, which a Harvard Medical School study found results in 45,000 unnecessary deaths each year.

Compare this to Germany, one of many countries with a smarter tax system and smarter spending policies.

Germans work less, make more per hour and get much better parental leave than Americans, many of whom get no fringe benefits such as health care, pensions or even a retirement savings plan. By many measures the vast majority live better in Germany than in America.

To achieve this, unmarried Germans on average pay 52 percent of their income in taxes. Americans average 30 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

At first blush the German tax burden seems horrendous. But in Germany (as well as in Britain, France, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia and Japan), tax-supported institutions provide many of the things Americans pay for with after-tax dollars. Buying wholesale rather than retail saves money. 

A proper comparison would take the 30 percent average tax on American workers and add their out-of-pocket spending on health care, college tuition and fees for services, and compare that with taxes that the average German pays. Add it all up and the combination of tax and personal spending is roughly equal in both countries, but with a large risk of catastrophic loss in America, and a tiny risk in Germany. 

Americans take on $85 billion of debt each year for higher education, while college is financed by taxes in Germany and tuition is cheap to free in other modern countries. While soaring medical costs are a key reason that since 1980 bankruptcy in America has increased 15 times faster than population growth, no one in Germany or the rest of the modern world goes broke because of accident or illness. And child poverty in America is the highest among modern countries—almost twice the rate in Germany, which is close to the average of modern countries.

On the corporate tax side, the Germans encourage reinvestment at home and the outsourcing of low-value work, like auto assembly, and German rules tightly control accounting so that profits earned at home cannot be made to appear as profits earned in tax havens. 

Adopting the German system is not the answer for America. But crafting a tax system that benefits the vast majority, reduces risks, provides universal health care and focuses on diplomacy rather than militarism abroad (and at home) would be a lot smarter than what we have now.

Here is a question to ask yourself: We started down this road with Reagan’s election in 1980 and upped the ante in this century with George W. Bush. 

How long does it take to conclude that a policy has failed to fulfill its promises? And as you think of that, keep in mind George Washington. When he fell ill his doctors followed the common wisdom of the era. They cut him and bled him to remove bad blood. As Washington’s condition grew worse, they bled him more. And like the mantra of tax cuts for the rich, they kept applying the same treatment until they killed him.

Luckily we don’t bleed the sick anymore, but we are bleeding our government to death.

Credits: WW CHART — SOURCES: OMB; CENSUS.GOV; BEA.GOV; CALCULATIONS BY AUTHOR

---

David Cay Johnston is a columnist for tax.com and teaches the tax, property and regulatory law of the ancient world at Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management. He has also been called the “de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United States” because his reporting in The New York Times shut down many tax dodges and schemes, just two of them valued by Congress at $260 billion. Johnston received a 2001 Pulitzer Prize for exposing tax loopholes and inequities. He wrote two bestsellers on taxes, Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. Later this year, Johnston will be out with a new book, The Fine Print, revealing how big business, with help from politicians, abuses plain English to rob you blind. 

 

Ezra Klein in Forbes on The Bush Tax Cuts and Why They No Longer Make Sense

Rick Ungar

THE POLICY PAGE

• MY PROFILE
• MY HEADLINE GRABS
• MY RSS FEED

BUSINESS

Share

1digg

2
inShare

Does Anyone Still Remember Why We Have The Bush Tax Cuts?

Jul. 12 2011 - 4:56 pm | 4,236 views | 2 recommendations | 58 comments

In today’s Washington Post, Ezra Klein reminds us of the circumstances that brought the Bush tax cuts into being – and why they no longer make any sense.

The Bush tax cuts were not supposed to last forever. Alan Greenspan, whose oracular endorsement was perhaps the single most decisive event in their passage, made it very clear that they were a temporary solution to a temporary surplus. “Recent data significantly raise the probability that sufficient resources will be available to undertake both debt reduction and surplus-lowering policy initiatives,” Greenspan said in 2001.

Via Washington Post

While things may not have worked out the way it was envisioned back in 2001, one can certainly appreciate a philosophy suggesting that a government that is racking up large, annual surpluses might be indicative of a population that is being taxed too highly.

Of course, there were no shortage of voices at the time arguing that the surplus should be committed to the public benefit – like investing to repair our collapsing infrastructure and improving on the basics so as to keep America competitive in the 21^st century.  Indeed, had the Senate not invoked the procedural device of reconciliation, the tax cut would have gone down to a filibuster as the final vote was 58-33.

I can recall my own reaction to the tax changes those many years ago.

While I wondered if we should not be more focused on putting money aside for that inevitable rainy day, I could certainly understand a policy that would allow more dollars to stay in the pockets of Americans if the government did not actually need the cash.  I also didn’t mind that my own pockets would be a little heavier thanks to the legislation.

Further, if the estimates of the day were correct, the revenue that would come into the national coffers following the tax break would still be adequate to meet the nation’s needs.

As things turned out, the surplus that gave life to the initial Bush tax cuts had all but disappeared by the end of 2001 as the economy slowed unexpectedly.

Where the CBO had once predicted a $125 billion budget surplus for 2001, just thirteen months later that same CBO estimate had turned into a $9 billion deficit.

It happens.

By all rights, a responsible President would have made the necessary adjustments once the surplus turned into a deficit. Of course, the politics of such a move would have been extremely unpleasant for the administration and one could hardly blame them for not wanting to take back the gift they had just recently bestowed on the public.

Then came 9-11, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I remember watching the television screen as the bombs began to fall on Baghdad, thinking that one of those bombs had my tax cut tattooed on its side. Surely, unless this war turned out to be as brief and inexpensive as the invasion of Granada many years before, our tax cut would explode into dust just as the target that bomb had set its sights upon was pulverized into ashes.

Nothing eats up a federal budget like a war, let alone two wars.

Imagine my surprise when President Bush not only failed to make the expected speech wherein he would suspend the 2001 cuts as they were no longer in the best interest of a nation during a time of war, but actually elected, less than thirty days after the commencement of “shock and awe”, to move ahead with his plans to provide further cuts via The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 – the law which reduced taxes on dividends and cut the capital gains tax rate.

If you thought the 2001 cuts were tough to get through the Congress, consider that, even with the use of reconciliation once again to avoid a filibuster, President Bush only managed to get passage in the Senate by a vote of 51-50 with Vice-President Cheney casting the deciding vote to break the tie.

While the 2003 cuts were intended to be permanent – or permanent until another Congress came along to change them – the 2001 Bush cuts werenot so intended. And that is no small point.

Indeed, the law came complete with a sunset provision that would bring the tax cut to an end in 2010 if Congress decided to return to the rates of the Clinton era should circumstances so require.

The expectation of the 2001 Congress was that government, with the benefit of knowing how things turned out over the ten years following initial passage, would make wise decisions as to whether or not the cuts were still judicious in light of the current circumstances.

What the 2001 Congress could not foresee was that, in just ten short years, their intentions would be perverted to the point where Members would stand fast against meeting the intent of the very law they voted to pass – even in the face of a serious, nation-threatening budget crisis.

I have no doubt that the Congresses that passed both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would have viewed our current situation as one demanding serious cuts in federal programs, including entitlements, just as our current Congress is also demanding.

But I also have little doubt that the 2001 GOP would not have imagined that their leadership in the year 2011 would be so irresponsible as to lead their party- and the nation- into a scenario whereby they would so much as consider allowing the United States to default on debts created by that very Congress -and the many that preceded and would follow them.

Late in 2010, as the tax cuts were ready to expire, President Obama sought to persuade the legislative branch that the very concerns that gave rise to the sunset provision in the law had more than come to pass.

We all know how that turned out. In an effort to protect the unemployment insurance that stood as the sole support for the families of millions of unemployed Americans who were the victims of the Great Recession, the President was forced to cave in to the GOP and allow the Bush cuts to continue despite the escalating crisis of our national debt.

Was that really the intent of the 2001 Congress?

I don’t think so.

The history of the 2001 tax bill is known all too well to the current crop of Republican leaders as they were there when it came into being and, to a man, voted for the legislation that included the sunset provision.

These men know what the Congress intended– and they couldn’t care less.

With all their talk about responsible government, the GOP refusal to acknowledge that the circumstances that gave rise to the Bush tax cuts could not be further from where we now find ourselves, is the clearest indicator of the perversion of government that is the GOP led Congress.

If you support lower taxes, fine. If you believe that oil companies should continue to receive hundreds of millions in government subsidies despite their extraordinary profits, that is your given right as an American.

And if you think that the GOP’s refusal to deal honestly with the debt solution by remembering why the Bush tax cuts exist and showing some willingness to make the adjustments contemplated in 2001 – even if just for the most wealthy among us – is the right way to go, then vote as you will.

But do yourself a favor.

Stop pretending that this behavior is, in some bizarre way, the actions of those who seek to benefit and protect the national interest. Even the 2001 Congress (with a GOP majority in the House) realized that the tax cuts might turn out to be counterproductive in the future- and they had the good sense to plan for this despite doing so during a time when we not only had surpluses but believed that we would continue to be in the money for many years to come.

Things change – and responsible leaders change with the times.

Thus, if you believe that the Bush tax cuts were the right thing to do, then you should also acknowledge that there was a plan that came with it and that plan should be honored.

Does anyone really believe that this is what is happening?

People like Eric Cantor and Grover Norquist know the intent of the law that created the Bush tax cuts. Eric Cantor voted for it.

Yet they ignore it – leaving Mr. Cantor to play hardball with a bat he was never intended to have- not even by Eric Cantor himself.

How is that not just plain wrong?

contact Rick at thepolicypage@gmail.com

Twitter @rickungar