tax – Page 2 – I Think, Therefore I Rant!

Complaints on tax day

By admin | April 15, 2010 | Comments 0 Comment

On this tax day, I think this opinion from the Wall Street Journal is excellent. It appears that Mr. Donohue is a 2 or 3 years older than I am but, other than that, his life and mine are very similar. Not surprisingly, so are our opinions.

I would add that there is another huge tax that I am paying that many people that are poor do not pay. My oldest son is in college. Because I work very hard and make a very nice income, I pay list price for college education. My son is not eligible for financial aid simply because his old man works too hard. Luckily, he understands the value of hard work as well and has earned some merit based grants based on his academic credentials. He also works at part-time jobs to help pay the way. Anything in excess of that, Dad pays for.

I wouldn’t complain about the costs of sending my son to college except that the system is not totally fair. I am very familiar with another family with kids that are slightly older than mine. In their case, the father has had little success in building a career and essentially earns a buck or two over minimum wage. The mother doesn’t like to work, and even though she is a trained nurse she only works 15 hours a week – not because she can’t find work but rather she doesn’t want to work that many hours (she says standing too long makes her feet sore). Together, they sired 6 kids (obviously they knew how to work at something). As those kids grew up, food stamps were regularly available to them and they ate a free school lunch. The kids are smart and when they finish high school they have all gone to college – the most any have had to pay is ten grand for 4 years at a very good private college. Most of the others paid nothing except for incidentals. One studied overseas for a year for free.

All of these kids received government secured student loans. These are capped at a certain amount per year.

I am happy that these 6 kids are devoted to their future enough that they have gone to college. They appear to be starting their lives in good jobs and I am happy for them and wish them well. However, as I write checks for college for my son, I am jealous of their lazy parents – they don’t work hard and their kids are not penalized for that. I work hard and am penalized.

It just doesn’t seem fair and I am fed up.

By MIKE DONAHUE

I’m in the 32% federal and 10% state income tax brackets. I pay a 1.2% property tax on very expensive California real estate. I am subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. I am self-employed and subject to a 15% payroll tax on the first $100,000 in income and an 8.75% state sales tax. If I have a gain from investing, I pay a minimum of 15% federal and 10% state tax but can only write off $3,000 per year if I lose.

And now the government wants me to pay more?

As a child I mowed lawns, shoveled snow, had a paper route, sold sandwiches at school, and cut up dead trees and split them for firewood to sell during spring break. I have worked every summer since I turned 14. I took out student loans for college and worked 35 hours a week, at night, to pay for the rest.

Since I graduated in 1983, I have been in straight commission sales and have had many 60- to 70-hour work weeks. No secure salary, no big promotions, no pension—just me profiting though helping others while being subject to the swings of the economic cycle. The first 20 years were tough, but it’s finally starting to pay off.

I drive a nicer car (bought used), live in a better neighborhood, have more retirement savings than many. But I am certainly not rich, and every month I find my ever increasing bills (and taxes) tend to match my income. I have more than most only because I’ve worked harder than most and because I am a saver. It was not easy.

Why then does the government feel so entitled to take my money and give it to others? Why should I have to carry so many people on my back? Call me cruel. I don’t care. I give to whom I choose—but since so much is confiscated (and wasted in the process) I have little left I wish to give.

During the 1990 recession I could have qualified for state and federal assistance, but my wife and I managed to get by as she worked nights while we juggled our infant daughter between us. It was hard. However, it never occurred to us to take from others to subsidize our shortage. It’s not our way.

Life is hard. You learn when you fail and you make changes when things hurt. Why then is the liberal agenda trying to make sure nobody feels any pain? And why does the government feel so entitled to steal from many in order to give it to others. What has happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

My patience and pocketbook are reaching the breaking point. I am not for equal outcomes regardless of effort. I’m tired of being the mule. Maybe I will quit and live on the dole for awhile. I probably even have enough health issues to join the one in seven adults categorized as disabled. I’ve been poor and I’m not afraid to go back.

Remember it was social mobility that made America great—the ability to earn and get ahead. If Congress continues to buy votes at the expense of social mobility we will no longer be a great nation. The truly rich will stay that way but many “Henrys” (high earners, not rich yet) like me will quit. We may be only a small percentage of the population but we pay a large portion of the taxes and employ many. If you take the incentives away you will lose Henrys.

Mr. Donahue is a financial adviser in La Jolla, California.

Twitter This

President Obama pitches Chicago for the Olympics

By admin | September 29, 2009 | Comments 0 Comment

Currently, President Barack Hussein Obama is planning on going to Copenhagen to be a celebrity pitchman for the city of Chicago (and America in general) for the home of the 2016 Olympics. While there is plenty of controversy over this decision since there are probably hundreds of movie stars and celebrities that could be tasked with helping the cause, the concern that BHO is too busy to go is probably not relevant.

Currently, every head of state for a city that is in the finals is visiting the IOC. BHO’s lack of attendance would be telling if he did not go. If BHO stayed home and spent more time socializing our economy, he would be vastly criticized if Chicago lost their bid. It is the sad state of Olympics politics that the head of state needs to be involved in order to win since Blair did that 4 years ago to secure London’s hosting spot.

There is little danger in BHO going. He has already started the process of vastly increasing our taxes with a cap and trade initiative as well as screwing up the healthcare reform effort. Having him travel around Europe (where they love him) is probably a good thing. Maybe while he is on that side of the pond, Iran can give him a quick tour of their nuclear facilities and missile program. Then he can come back and give a Chamberlain style speech!

There is no questioning BHO’s star appeal. In fact, this was an issue during his campaign for the Presidency (and led to this hilarious video). Let him use this star power to bring the Olympics to Chicago – for no other reason than we will be able to see the events in primetime rather than tape delayed!!

Twitter This

Healthcare for illegals

By admin | September 15, 2009 | Comments 0 Comment

First, let me be clear, I think that Rep. Wilson of South Carolina should be censured for his outburst while President Barack Hussein Obama was speaking in a joint session of Congress. He reminds of irresponsible brats such as Kanye West. Public outbursts while the President is speaking are simply unacceptable in any format and definitely not allowed in a joint session of Congress.

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen. Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers. Seems reasonable. SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.

Twitter This

You want change – you can have change

By admin | August 10, 2009 | Comments 0 Comment

I received this as a “joke” email today from a friend that is quite conservative in his political beliefs. I thought it was a unique commentary on the state of our nation. I find it refreshing that this email doesn’t blame President Obama for the solid state of the economy but instead is complaining about him adding to the problem.

Dear Employee:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy caused by banks that can’t run an effective business, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead.

This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty ‘Obama’ bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can’t think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change…… I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.


                                                          THE BOSS

Technorati Tags: Barack Hussein Obama,joke,email

Twitter This

Why we shouldn’t regulate venture capitalists

By admin | August 10, 2009 | Comments 0 Comment

With any downturn in the economy, there are always new rules and regulations that are discussed or passed to prevent the previous calamity from occurring again. The same is true for this latest downturn with a variety of efforts and attention being shown to the banking and mortgage industries.

Now attention is also being shown to the venture capitalists. This is not necessary. Nothing in this current downturn can have VC activity pointed to as the cause. In fact, VCs are fairly well self-regulated by the activity of the stock market and they take a sizeable set-back when the tech bubble bursts (most notably in the early part of this decade).

No VC is too big to fail and no VC has a huge majority of the market. It simply doesn’t make sense to overly regulate this industry when so much of what we enjoy on a regular basis is the result of VC activity (nearly the entire IT industry including the technology that makes this blog possible and your ability to read it).

Here are a few thoughts taken from a column at the Wall Street Journal:

Just when the economy needs risk-taking the most, risk-takers are under the most threat. The Treasury now wants venture-capital firms declared as systemic risks and put under tight restrictions as part of the broader re-regulation of financial firms. Venture capitalists argue that since they don’t use debt and their firms are comparatively small, they shouldn’t come under rules designed for highly leveraged, too-big-to-fail banks.

How this debate turns out matters, because some 20% of U.S. gross national product is created by companies that were formed through venture backing. They include Intel, Apple and Google. How policy makers treat venture capital is a measure of the amount of innovation and enterprise that happens in an economy, with more regulation leading to less innovation.

This is a tough time for venture capital, with investments by firms falling more than 50% in the second quarter. The 700 or so venture-capital firms in the U.S. are mostly small partnerships, with a modest voice in Washington. They say the industry as we know it can’t survive if firms are regulated as investment advisers, which would mean complying with rules for disclosure, compliance, record keeping and privacy designed for huge firms.

Uncertainty about which regulations applied to early-stage investing slowed the growth of venture capital. It wasn’t until deregulation in the late 1970s that the industry took off. The capital gains tax rate was cut to 28% from nearly 50% in 1978, and for the first time pension funds and other fiduciaries could include venture capital as part of an overall portfolio. During this vital period venture firms began to nourish what are today’s high-tech leaders, from information technology and the Internet to genetic research and health care.

The proposal now to tighten how venture firms operate suggests that we are in a stage of the regulatory cycle closer to the New Deal than to the entrepreneurial era that followed. Adding regulatory burdens would do nothing to help the investors in venture funds who are willing to take the big risks, knowing that about half of venture-backed companies fail. It would only increase the costs of doing business and make risk-takers more risk-averse.

No venture capital firm has asked to be bailed out, and none are too big to fail. As hard as it is for regulators to understand, the nature of venture capital is such that it should not even aspire to be a low-risk enterprise.