A Saner Way to Collect Taxes

Tax day is always a good time to get everyone's attention momentarily so you can present ideas for a better way to collect taxes. For purposes of this post we won't be addressing what the legitimate use of those tax dollars should be.

 Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute has made several videos in the past to extol the virtues of eliminating our insanely complex and distortional tax code and replacing it with a sane alternative.

Whatever I could write about this subject would be just a tad less understandable and compelling than his presentation so I'll let him do the explaining. (Okay, it's more than a tad less, but I like to delude myself into thinking I have something to add.)

Dan's post today on his own blog, International Liberty, is well worth your time. It has a trillion great links to interesting stuff about how we are getting screwed. (A trillion? Why yes, I use govt. accounting methods.)       -- Grant Davies

 

Yes, It's Another Commentary About Rand Paul

I'd be delighted to showcase a video featuring another leader talking common sense to the American people. The problem is, I don't see anyone else doing that.

In this video, he takes his turn on the Government Affairs Subcommittee today and turns out to be the only one to call the whole dog and pony show for what it is.

This is a leader saying what needs to be said, and as usual, he stands alone. I'd be happy to showcase someone else if any reader wants to send me a link to a video of someone else taking the lead in the fight to bring sanity back to our government.

In the mean time, Apple did nothing wrong. And thank goodness someone stood up for them.

"My opening comments defending Apple and condemning Congress in today's absurd show trial. Apple deserves a medal, not an inquiry." - Rand Paul

The Current Tax Picture Explained - Warning, Very Graphic

I have spent a lot of time over the last few years promoting Dan Mitchell's blog, International Liberty. If anyone who visited there was disappointed, I apologize. I'm guessing that won't be necessary for most who are regular readers of this site.

It's a terrific source of information and informed opinion from a guy who is as amusing as he is enlightening. Of course the opinions are expressed from a libertarian perspective, but what else would you expect from  this blog? It is, after all, about freedom issues.

So here is a picture I swiped from his blog. Warning: the image is graphic and may be disturbing to some people. (Particularly tax accountants, several of whom I count among my friends.)

The post Dan wrote is excellent as usual and I recommend you read it here. The basic theme is about the IRS taxpayer "advocates" and what they are actually advocating. But I couldn't resist posting the picture because I believe that bigger government and more regulations equal less freedom, which is the basic theme of this blog.

Editors note-- In the short time this post has been published this site has been visited by the Justice Dept. and the IRS. Rather odd, I think.

Italians are Revolting

By Dan Mitchell

I wrote last year about a tax protest in Ireland, and I wrote earlier this year about a tax revolt in Greece.

But Irish and Greek taxpayers are wimps compared to their Italian compatriots. When Italians decide to have a tax revolt, they don't kid around. Here are some remarkable details from the UK-based Telegraph.

In the last six months there has been a wave of countrywide attacks on offices of Equitalia, the agency which handles tax collection, with the most recent on Saturday night when a branch was hit with two petrol bombs.Staff have also expressed fears over their personal safety with increasing numbers calling in sick and with one unidentified employee telling Italian TV: “I have told my son not to say where I work or tell anyone what I do for a living.”

As much as I despise high taxes, I don't think petrol bombs are the answer. But I am glad that at least some of the bureaucrats feels shame about their jobs.

Not surprisingly, the political elite wants people to be deferential to predatory government.

Annamaria Cancellieri, the interior minister, said she was considering calling in the army in a bid to quell the rising social tensions.“There have been several attacks on the offices of Equitalia in recent weeks. I want to remind people that attacking Equitalia is the equivalent of attacking the State,” she said in an interview with La Repubblica newspaper.

Here's some advice for Ms. Cancellieri: Maybe people will be less likely to attack "the State" if "the State" stops attacking the people.

But don't expect that to happen. The Prime Minister also demands obedience to "the State" and there's rhetoric about "paying taxes is a duty" from other high-level government officials.

Saturday night’s attack took place on the Equitalia office in Livorno and the front of the building was left severely damaged by fire after the bombs exploded. The phrases “Thieves” and “Death to Equitalia” were sprayed onto outside walls. It came just 24 hours after more than 200 people had been involved in running battles with police outside a branch in Naples which left a dozen protesters and officers hurt. ...There has also been a striking increase in suicides with people leaving notes directly blaming Equitalia and tax demands. Paola Severino, the Justice minister, said: “The economic situation has produced unease but paying taxes is a duty. On one side there is anger and the problem of paying when the resources are scare but on the other side is the fact that they must be paid.” ...Mr Monti has vowed to press on even harder this year to recover the lost money. He is due to have a meeting with Equitalia chief Attilio Befera to discuss the situation and he has already said: “We are not going to take a step back, there will be no giving in to those who have declared was against the revenue and therefore the State. We will not be intimidated.”

Keep in mind, by the way, that this is the government that supposedly is being run by brilliant technocrats, yet they are so incompetent that they appoint the wrong people to posts. But the real problem is that government is far too big, consuming one-half of Italy's economic output.

If Italy's political class wants to improve tax compliance, they should listen to the IMF and academic economists, both of whom point out that lower tax rates reduce incentives for evasion and avoidance.

It also would help to shrink the burden of the public sector. Unfortunately, as is the case with most other European nations, "austerity" in Italy mostly means higher taxes, not less spending.


Dan Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. With express permission, his articles are reprinted here from time to time, particularly when the editor of this site is busy visiting his newborn grand child. You can read more fine articles like this one at International Liberty.

What's the Problem? Taxes Too Low? Or Spending Too High?

Most of the readers of this blog already know the answer to the question. The real question is, will the less than three minutes it takes to watch this excellent video convince any of your left leaning friends (who think that taxing  the "rich" more can solve the problem) that the country has a spending problem? The only way to get the answer to that question is to circulate this video widely.



As usual, hat tip to Dan Mitchell for posting the video on his terrific blog - International Liberty - where you can read more about this subject. (And just about anything else worth knowing about the country's fiscal woes.)

Note- The professor in this video, Anthony Davies, is no relation to the author of these comments, but he seems almost as clever.

Editor's note: The video on the side bar concerning how much tax it takes to support the spending has been there for many months. It stays there because the goofy ideas it refutes are still being passed around. If you haven't watched it, you should. If you have, you should do so again. And no matter what, you should circulate it as widely as possible.

The Gullible Gazette - 2nd Edition

A few days ago we posted a piece about whether people were gullible enough to swallow the nonsense concerning Obama's new proposed "Buffett Tax."

You know the one, the tax that says that rich people (previously defined as anyone making more than $250,000) should pay income tax at a rate of at least 30% so they would be sure to pay more than their secretaries. It's all  about "fairness" ya' know.

It is also claimed that we could balance the budget with the proceeds, or at least make a big dent. I'm guessing that no regular readers of this blog bought into that nonsense, but in that article we gave a mathematical illustration just in case they wanted to explain the whole thing to their more gullible friends.

So why am I talking about this again? Well, it's because President Obama's tax return was released today. So let's continue the "Gullible Gazette" series with another Jeff Foxworthy question and answer gag by saying;

If you think that Obama really believes that everybody who makes $789,674 per year (like Obama himself did last year) should pay at least 30%....you just might be gullible. 

You see, he paid his taxes at the rate of 20.5% instead of the 30% he thinks should be willingly paid by his goofy buddy Warren Buffett and anyone else who dares to succeed financially.

No word yet on why he doesn't just skip a bunch of deductions himself so he can cough up the other 10%. Maybe it's because he has redefined "rich"- for this piece of legislation only- as anyone making a million dollars a year instead of the measly $789,674 he made after his deductions.

Pretty convenient I'd say. At least I'd say that if I was gullible.

Late breaking news! Since this piece was posted I came across a new news item from ABC news. Yep, you guessed it, President Obama’s Secretary Paid Higher Tax Rate Than He Did.  The spin on this one is likely to be sufficient to back a golf ball up from Augusta to Pebble Beach.

The Gullible Gazette - 1st Edition

How can you tell if you are among the millions of people in this country who are habitually gullible?


Well, in a hat tip to Mr. Jeff Foxworthy, one of the redneck comedy boys:
You might be gullible:


If you think that President Obama's new campaign proposal that anyone making over $1million a year should pay income tax at a rate of at least 30% because it will help balance the budget and promote "fairness" ---- you might just be gullible.


As David Burge, aka, the "Iowa Hawk" - who does the math for a hugely popular blog of the same name - explains it: "If you taxed income in the US at 100% above $250k, you'd get $1.41 trillion - not enough to run the govt for 5 months."


And speaking of Foxworthy, he and Larry the Cable Guy would be a better ticket to vote for in the upcoming Presidential election than any of the other offerings. Oh, I know that Obama's policies are hilarious, but he's just a rank amateur, these guys are pros when it comes to laughter.


If we elect them, "Yes we can" Git R Done.

What the State Tax Debate is All About

Dan Mitchell explains a complicated issue in easy to understand language. If you want to know why we need to keep (and expand) tax competition between states and countries you should spend the eleven minutes it takes to watch this video. If you don't have eleven minutes, well, you might never really understand the issue.

The Government Has an Erection For You

As I wrote recently in an article for The Left Coast Rebel titled A Liberal Dose of Viagra , Chris Matthews may have lost that tingle up his leg for Barack Obama. But many other people on both sides of the political spectrum have not lost their "excitement" for big government even in this era of pretend austerity. For those that love the government gift-machine, the times have been very good indeed.

As to the title of this piece, you read it right. It seems the decision makers in the Medicare division of the cradle to grave government bureaucracy decided to ask our older male citizens if they were still able to "firm up" the deal. And if their medical records indicated they needed a little help, they could be provided with “Male Vacuum Erection Systems".  An "erector set" of sorts for the white hair crowd, also known as a penis pump. And just in time for Christmas!

Actually, it's been going on for many years, not just during the holiday season, but I couldn't resist. However, I did resist putting a picture of an actual penis pump on this post instead of the family friendly one you see.

It seems that over the last ten years the price of this equipment has been rising with the anatomy. (Artificial demand will do that to things.) In 2001 it only cost the taxpayers 11 million to help the geezers get it up to snuff but by 2010 the cost had risen (no pun intended) to 47 million.

And as Everett Dirkson once said, a few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money! The cost to taxpayers by the end of this year will surpass a whopping Quarter-Billion dollars. 

All this information came to me from our friends over at the Heartland Institute when Jim Lakely, the Director of Communications at that fine think tank gave me a heads up via email that the article by Benjamin Domenech on this subject was being published in The Heartlander today.

Unfortunately, before I could "get to press" on this piece, Matt Drudge broke the story with a link to the article this morning. It really ticks me off when a tiny site like the Drudge Report gets the drop on my huge blog, even when I have a head start.

But it got me to thinking; If the government wants one old guy to get excited, they could just talk Drudge into putting a link on his website to WhatWeThinkAndWhy and the country could save plenty on Male Vacuum Erection Systems. At least for one old blogger. And just in time for Christmas!

A Fair Share of Greed

Having lit the fuse of the class warfare bomb only to see it fizzle out any number of times since he hit the world stage a few years back, President Obama seems to have finally got it to spark up at least a little bit recently.

The incoherent "Occupy" demonstrations that have sprung up among the intellectually challenged and morally bankrupt crowd have given the country's leftists some of  the Obama promised  "hope" they have been pining for since some political slickster came up with that slogan to lure the useful idiots * into electing him in 2008. But it seems their hope will be dashed once again even though the dominant media refuses to interview the demonstrators in (or show the video results of) any depth about what precisely they are trying to accomplish.

Thankfully, now-a-days we have the internet where some semblance of the truth can be sorted out from the nonsense if one gives it some time and thought. It's a darn sight better than letting the main media filter it for us like they used to before they had some good old fashioned competition.

The main theme of the demonstrators, if there is one, is that rich people are greedy because they have more money than some other people and something should be done about it. It's not entirely clear what they think that should be, but since they appear to be supporters of the Democratic party, it's safe to speculate that they think more big government laws and regulations are one answer.

It all brings up some interesting questions about greed. Who is greedy anyway? Milton Friedman summed it up succinctly when he said, "It's only the other fellow who is greedy."

Are the wealthy greedy because they already have enough (however one defines "enough") but want more? Or are those who already get money and benefits provided by the wealthy greedy because what they get is never "enough" and they want more? In a country where the more well to do pay all the taxes and about 50% of the rest of the people pay nothing, what is the the latter's "fair share" as Barack Obama is fond of terming it?

The above cartoon explains that concept better than I could ever do it, but still there are many who don't (or refuse to) "get it."   The Merriam Webster dictionary definition of greed is: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed. 

So the question remains, who is greedy? Those who have their own money and desire to keep it? (perish the thought of actually desiring more) Those who have some OPM (other people's money) but want more because it's "fair"? Or politicians at every level of government who are flush with taxpayer money but never have enough to buy even more votes with? One thing is certain, all of those groups will define "needed" in a different way.

The video below was sent to me by one of my unpaid researchers and it shows a young greedy man at one of the demonstrations complaining that other men not in attendance are greedy because they won't forgive his student loans so he can spend his money on other things he wants but no one will give him. (So far you can't buy an i-Pad with food stamps)

The reason I don't pay my researchers is that this blog has no advertising and therefore no one makes any money from it, least of all me. And since I'm not starving, I don't really "need" the revenue, but if I ever put ads on here or ask for donations, you can assume I am greedy. And I'm okay with that.



* Not everyone who voted for Obama was an idiot. But the people who did so because they believed in the political rhetoric of "Hope and Change" and class warfare certainly qualify.

He's Not My First Choice, But He's Not the Worst Choice

Image courtesy of Ragwater Cat 

A few days ago, I posted a short piece addressing whether presidential aspirant Herman Cain was as able as he is likable. I expressed that I liked the guy's style but held back on any commentary on the substance of his proposals, promising that I would do that in this piece.


His main policy initiative is what he calls his "9-9-9" plan. Essentially it proposes a substantive change in the tax code. Simply, it is a 9% flat tax across all income levels, a 9% corporate tax rate and a 9% national sales tax. On the surface, sans a lot of details, it sounds pretty good on several different levels. 


Putting aside the notion that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a new President to make such a proposal become law in a country with so many special interests working around the clock to see to it that it never happens, let's talk about some of the things about it that sound good before I tell you why I think it's not so good.


The first good thing is he is on the right path if he thinks that the country needs a new tax system. The one we have now has so many problems, is so huge, so complicated, and so non-tax related that it has simply become a national nightmare to all but government power mongers and the beneficiaries of their favors.


The second good thing is that any plan that simplifies the code by removing deductions (sometimes called loopholes) and flattening the rate will bring clarity to people and businesses so we can begin to get back to the basics and remove some of the uncertainties that cause paralysis in the economy.


The third good thing is that it addresses the double (and sometimes more) taxation that we all end up paying one way or the other. And, in theory, there may be other good things about it as well.


So what could be wrong with it? Well, as it turns out the problem is as old as a bible story. The problem for Adam and Eve was that their son Abel was too trusting of his brother Cain. He ended up getting murdered because of it. And I'm afraid that we will end up getting murdered in a tax sense by politicians who the modern day Cain trusts too much to leave his tax plan alone if he ever ends up getting it enacted.


Herman Cain's plan which adds a national sales tax to an income tax is just too trusting that future politicians won't just hike one or the other (or both) of them the second they get the chance. I guarantee it will happen, it's as certain as the taxes themselves. Then all of us become like a modern day Abel, that is to say, dead. 


It all amounts to just tinkering with the system and like a lot of proposals, it sounds good on paper but it's not worth the paper it's written on. What we need is a new tax system, not more layers on top of the one we have now.


I like Herman Cain on several levels even though he supported the imbecilic TARP law which bailed out the banks and other crony capitalists. And according to a new Rasmussen poll just released it seems a lot of other folks do too since it shows him within 5 points of Obama if the election were held today. But there are no perfect candidates and Cain has his share of baggage from my perspective.


I'm not too big on polls in general and the above one is no exception. Nor is the one which came out today (9-28-11) showing Ron Paul actually leading Obama by 51% to 49%. There are too many variables. In my mind they are like snapping a picture without a flashbulb.


When it comes to tax systems, I like the flat tax best, and when it comes to early preferences for Presidential replacements, I like Ron Paul the best. But since there are no perfect candidates, when it comes to Herman Cain, he's not my first choice, but he's not the worst choice. (That would be Barack Obama.)


The video below explains very well why I prefer a Flat Tax to any other system currently being floated. 



To read a great analysis on Cain and his plan please visit International Liberty and see what Dan Mitchell thinks.

He is Likable, but Is Cain Able?

I don't think that we should pick a President because of his "Likability" factor. We already tried that with the executive failure that we have serving in that capacity right now.

I never liked him (Obama) personally very much because I thought he was a phony, and I still do. (Very similar to Billy Bob Lewinsky who is still the biggest phony out there.)  But plenty of people did like Obama personally even if they think they made a big mistake by voting for him. And many still do. I keep reading comments, even from his detractors, that he is a nice guy and so on. Fair enough, different strokes for different folks and all that stuff.

Having said that, on a purely social level, there is one Presidential candidate that I find very likable. Herman Cain is a long-shot to be the nominee of the Republican Party to say the least. But in my personal poll (where I only poll myself) even if he isn't my first or even second choice, he wins the likability vote one to nothing.

The guy comes off as entertaining, refreshingly candid, upbeat and as someone who has enough wisdom to take his task, but not himself, too seriously. He smiles a lot, which makes me smile. It's a much needed commodity in these tense times.

Cain is a straight talker for sure. Just yesterday he called Obama out for his "Bullshit" ideas and said in no uncertain terms that he is a liar when he says "It's not a matter of class warfare but math." He also dressed down a Hollywood actor for jumping on the "Tea Party people are racists" bandwagon by saying, "C'mon man, this is real life." And he did all of that with a smile on his face. Good stuff from my perspective.

He also has some good ideas even if they aren't my first choice of all the ideas out there. And he seems to have caught on with a great many people who could influence the outcome of the upcoming election when he won the Florida Straw Poll by a wide margin over the media's darling boys.

So I thought I'd put a few videos up for those of you smart enough to focus your weekend energy on football and golf instead of politics. The last part of the first video is worth waiting for. A great Saturday Night Live skit brings some good laughs and the great question: "Can the Pizza Man deliver?"





Editor's note: Later this week we will examine Cain's major policy proposal (his "9-9-9 plan") to see if it will make good policy or not.

Warren Buffett Can't Count

I know it's hard to believe that the "Sage of Omaha" is mathematically challenged, particularly when many people have an image of him sitting at his kitchen table late at night poring over the giant stack of financial records of some huge corporation so he can decide whether he should spend a few billion to buy its stock or just write a check to the government to pay his "guilt tax."

We'll get to his math problem in a moment, but for now let's give him some well deserved credit for one correct calculation he made.

He correctly figured out a few years ago that people could spend their money more intelligently than the government could spend it. He had no use for his excess dough personally. After all, after twenty million or so, what could he spend it on that he didn't already have? The fun is in acquiring the money anyway.

So he knew he wasn't going to give it to the government to waste or pass around to their friends and he was too lazy or disinterested to pore over the books of charities to see which ones were more worthy than the others, so he passed it all along to Bill Gates to give away. I guess he figured that Bill Gates could spend it more wisely than the government even if he himself couldn't. He was correct about that.

I'm still puzzled about a few things though. If Buffett really thinks, as he claims, that he doesn't pay enough in taxes, why did he hire all those CPAs to find all the loopholes that allowed him to pay at the lower rate? I mean, couldn't he just have bought a copy of Turbo Tax, loaded it onto his laptop, entered what he earned, skipped all the deductions and paid the figure that appeared on the "Amount you owe" line at the bottom of the page? I'm confident that he wouldn't get a letter from the IRS threatening him for not taking all his rightful deductions.

The other way he could have paid more taxes was to just pony up the money that Berkshire Hathaway admits they owe from tax years 2002-2004.  Instead his company has been fighting with the IRS ever since then to avoid doing that. Toss in the taxes they are quibbling over concerning "issues" with tax years 2005-2009 and he could make some headway towards his goal. Remind me again why so many people think he is so bright.

Which brings us to his "fuzzy math" problem.

According to one paper Buffett recently said that "he paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year -- just 17.4 percent of his earnings, compared to an income tax rate of about 36 percent paid by his employees." (Perhaps they used Turbo Tax software.) With that admission he went to the top of the Barack Obama admiration list and got a chance to get everlasting fame as the only dope ever to get a tax named after him as his life's legacy.

Regardless, it seems he can't do the math because he didn't take into account that he already paid taxes on the money he used to invest with. The corporate rate is 35% on that money and he paid 15% in capital gains taxes when he earned a profit on those already taxed funds. So his rate is north of 40% in total depending on the calculations of what money goes where.

I'm not an accountant or tax expert so I'm sure someone will challenge the numbers just cited with their own facts and figures but I do know a few things for certain. One is that the same money shouldn't be taxed twice and the second is that we shouldn't need accountants and tax experts to pay our taxes.

Buffett may not know how to count, but Barack Obama does. At least he knows what he can count on. Buffett is a willing recruit in Obama's class war and it's one of the few things the President can count on.

Be sure to watch the new video on the right by Michael Tanner on the Buffett Tax.

Three Items That Have Nothing to Do With The Obama/Osama Headlines

Having resisted the urge to join the "comment cacophony" on the Osama/Obama news that knocked the Trump/Birth Certificate non-news off the front pages, I think it's time to bring a few different items up for contemplation.

The items have gotten buried and pushed aside by the admittedly interesting news that Osama bin Laden has a much more open mind nowadays. So while everyone else is focusing on that, allow me to try to refocus/distract you by talking about some other things that have been happening.

One interesting (but under-reported) incident that the left leaning media has been happy to see get buried was the "news" that there were no riots/massive demonstrations, no fleeing and hiding out elected officials, no mob takeover of the capitol building and no teacher "sick-ins" in Massachusetts after a Wisconsin-like law that curbs public employees collective bargaining was passed by the State House of Representatives and sent on to the State Senate. Could it be that if Democrat controlled legislatures have a rare moment of clarity like the Republican controlled legislatures in Wisconsin recently had, it's not so bad? Hmmm, I'll let you decide.

Another item that would be of note if not buried by recent events was the trial balloon floated by the Democrats this morning of a new tax. This time on the mileage people put on their cars between fill-ups. They were careful to try to distance the White House from the proposal just in case the trial balloon turns into a lead balloon.

I'm not sure how that new tax would square with the President's pledge to only soak those who make more than $250,000.  It should be interesting though. Maybe it will only be on cars that weren't manufactured by Government Motors.

Or maybe the news (according to statistics released today) that new claims for unemployment benefits just hit an eight month high would be more newsworthy if the country wasn't so distracted by the controversy over not having pictures of bin Laden's late intellect splattered all over to prove that he is as dead as the birth certificate issue.

You can always count on this blog to shout out those little tidbits of news when they are hard to hear over the din of the over-covered stories of the week. At no charge of course.

This blog remains free and it's probably worth every penny you pay for it.

It's All Very Taxing

The time to comment about taxes is when they happen (all the time), not on the last day you can file before the government starts to charge usurious interest rates on yet to be be paid obligations. If you wait until April 15th to write about them, whatever was written will probably get lost in the blizzard of other articles that occur at that time every year.

The stuff I write is already forgettable enough without getting trounced by the competition, so I'm going for it now.

The other (and more important) reason is that I just came across a wonderful video by a college student which explains one of the most overlooked and outrageous truths of our whole insane tax system. The video also demonstrates that sometimes students can teach us too.

The student's name is Hiwa Alaghebandian and her short presentation was featured on a blog I only discovered a few days ago. The blog belongs to Dan Mitchell, who some of you regular readers might recognize from the many times his own videos have appeared on the sidebar of this site. The name of the blog is International Liberty - Restraining Government in America and Around the World.

After finding Dan's site I enjoyed it so well that I have added it to the short list of blogs I follow at the bottom right hand side of this site. New posts are updated automatically for those sites so if you take a peek down there whenever you visit here you can easily navigate to them. It's worth the click.

Dan is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and although I have not met him personally I have seen him speak on several occasions and we have exchanged a few brief emails in regards to my featuring his work on this site and on the Humble Libertarian blog where it is my responsibility to post articles from Cato in exchange for an opportunity to post some of  my own commentaries to a larger audience.

The video is below and although it's not my intention to irritate you more than these crazy times already do, I'm sure you will be irritated after you watch it. I apologize in advance.

Credits Could Lead To An Armistice in The School Wars

The only K-12 education I ever received as a child was provided at so called "public" schools. And any failure to become "educated" at those schools falls squarely upon my shoulders, not those of the many fine teachers who worked hard to pound some knowledge and reasoning skills into my thick skull.

Of course there were good classes and bad as well as competent and incompetent teachers but since none of the schools then or now were located in Utopia it was to be expected. I learned at least as many useful life lessons from the bad teachers as the good ones because it was obvious even to a dimwit kid that if you see mistakes being made you try to avoid them yourself in the future. So for me the government schools worked out OK even if I never became a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist.

Some of the better teachers taught me to always question things even if they seemed obvious. And I have spent the rest of my life questioning everything that the majority has already decided was elementary. It makes me a pain in the ass to many of my friends who nevertheless suffer me gladly.

One of the elementary things I have always questioned was the need for "public" schools in the first place. I accepted the given reason for government provided schools was to make sure that those too poor to educate their own children would not have uneducated kids. But what I couldn't figure out was why the government was providing a "free" education even to those who could afford it on their own. (Leave aside for the moment the fact that even though my family had very little money, in my neighborhood even the kids who were way "poorer" than us went to private schools.)

It never made sense to me that just because some people couldn't afford it everyone was provided with a government paid education. Even "rich" people. Why shouldn't the government just give the poor people a subsidy so they could send their kids to the schools all the other people sent their kids to? That way no kid would be left out just because his parents were too poor, lazy, drunk, stupid or some combination of that list. It had to be cheaper to make an education available that way than building lots of schools and hiring duplicate administrators, teachers, custodians and the like.

Back in those days it never occurred to me that perhaps the government schools weren't primarily designed to be for the the purpose of educating poor kids. But back then I was actually in one of those institutions so maybe it wasn't the plan for that to occur to me.

It's only been in the last few decades there has been a lot of debate about this concept so I must not have been the only one to have simple concepts not occur to them. Of course the past debates were/are usually about what gets taught in the schools and other issues, but now that children in this country have fallen so far behind much of the rest of the developed world, folks are starting to debate all kinds of things to remedy that problem. George Will wrote a piece that appeared in today's issue of the Investors Business Daily which addresses that issue with facts and figures and I highly recommend reading it. It can be found here.

In the meantime, the following video has some interesting concepts about how to pay for education and improve it at the same time that haven't gotten too much press coverage from a media obsessed by ever expanding government influence on our lives. You may agree or disagree with the concepts and as always you are encouraged to leave your thoughts on it in the comment section below.

What's the Difference? It's Obvious

We all remember the old jokes that always started with the line "What's the difference between a blank and a blank?" Or the reverse, "how is a blank like a blank?" Most of them weren't too funny. The current philosophical (dare I say?) battle isn't that humorous either.

After a semi-political exchange in the comment section of a Face Book post by a largely non-political acquaintance the other day, I got to thinking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.

The issue being commented upon isn't important because any other "us vs them" issue would have had a similar ring to it. And since I'm not a Republican and I have no idea if the other commentators are Democrats, it really was just one more discussion about nothing of true importance. Such discussions are getting more frequent than they used to be and they seem to be more about which "side" you are on than anything else.

It didn't take me long to remember that the differences between those two political parties weren't as important as the similarities of those groups, so it was a nonstarter. You probably couldn't find a single member of either of those parties that would agree with me on that premise. They have too much emotional energy invested in their "teams" and I'm sure I will come under equal scorn by both.

Then I tried for liberals and conservatives. The differences were starker and more numerous, but when it comes to the governance part of those ideologies, they started to run together as well. From my perspective they both are interested in using government power to advance their own particular agenda for the country. (Or for the whole world for that matter.) George W Bush's "compassionate conservatism" agenda is ample evidence for that. As is the Clintonian "moderate liberalism" model.

I finally decided that the big differences are between the ideologies of big government "progressives" and freedom minded "classical liberals." (Today largely known as libertarians) It is in these two belief systems that the differences and the friction lies. I count myself among the latter group so I have a bias when describing the differences.

In a short essay such as this just a few of these differences can be counted, but who knows, maybe other essays will follow that describe the many others.

First there is the purpose of government itself.
One group views it as a necessary means to defend the rights of the people and very little else. Thomas Jefferson and I are among that group. (It's really fun to link myself to 'ole Tom even if you aren't falling for it.) The "progressives" of today think that the purpose of government is to solve societal problems and implement policies which reflect the vision of some angelic elite group who possess superior intellect.

So laws are to defend rights or to right wrongs. (It only sounds confusing.)

Next is taxes to run government.
One group thinks the purpose is just that, to run government. To raise revenue. The other group thinks taxes are the best method of promoting "fairness." Another way to describe it is to "spread the wealth" as Barak Obama explained it to Joe the plumber. The same is true of the argument over the spending of tax revenues, so it doesn't deserve it's own category.

These things are fundamental to many of us so you may be wondering why I have taken the time to point out the obvious. It's because when both sides of the philosophical aisle start to bicker about whose fault it is when some whack job kills a bunch of innocent people while trying to assassinate a US Representative all of the real differences get lost in the battle between people who largely agree on the big issues even if they don't realize it.

To me the differences are obvious even if this list is abbreviated. Can't we all just get along?
Umm,, no.

Illinois Internet Tax is Set To Begin Driving More Business Out of State

The following is a continuation of the recent practice of this site to highlight the work of the Heartland Institute, particularly on issues of interest to citizens of Illinois.

Seeking to plug a $15 billion budget deficit, Illinois legislators are contemplating the implementation of taxes on online purchases, which they estimate could raise up to $150 million. Companies impacted by the tax, however, say it will result in out-of-state companies severing their affiliation with Illinois-based partners.

The Internet tax is an amendment to Illinois House Bill 3659, and calls for a 6.25 percent use tax on online purchases. Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is expected to sign the bill, which would allow the use tax to begin July 1 of this year.

Illinois companies affiliated with Internet merchandisers outside the state, however, predict these suppliers will terminate their business partnerships rather than pay the tax. For example, online merchandisers Overstock.com and veterinary products distributor Drs. Foster & Smith terminated business dealings with affiliates in New York when that state passed a similar law.

Brent Shelton, spokesperson for Rockton, Illinois, online merchandiser FatWallet, stated the new taxes will not only force Amazon to sever its relationship with his company, but may force FatWallet to relocate in another state. “We are affiliated with many retail partners outside of Illinois,” he said. “And if these retailers are required to collect taxes from affiliate partners in Illinois, they’ll respond, ‘If that’s the law, we’re not going to have a partnership with FatWallet.'"

Read the rest of Bruce Edward Walker's essay

at Heartland.org

Bruce Edward Walker is managing editor of InfoTech & Telecom News.

Filed by Grant Davies

Illinois - Forty Eighth on It's Way To Fiftieth

The Illinois legislature in the wee hours Wednesday passed – without a single Republican vote – a tax package that increases income taxes by 67 percent and corporate taxes by 46 percent. The following statements by budget and tax experts at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute may be used for attribution.
________________________________________
John Nothdurft, director of government relations, The Heartland Institute:

“Today Democratic lawmakers in Illinois forfeited the tax code’s lone competitive advantage by raising the income tax to 5 percent – a hike of 67 percent. It is no surprise that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels have been so vocal in their pleasure about today’s actions.

“These actions by the legislature will substantially hinder Illinois’ ability to bounce back from the great recession on what many economists see as the eve of economic recovery. This is utterly reckless policy that will cost the state taxpayers as well as jobs – and further proof the state should consider eliminating lame-duck sessions.”
For additional comment, contact John Nothdurft at jnothdurft@heartland.org


Steve Stanek, research fellow for budget and tax policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Budget & Tax News:

“It’s hard to know what to say after watching this spectacle in Springfield. Not a single Republican voted for these outrageous tax increases, showing the absolute contempt of Democrats toward not just their Republican colleagues but the millions of citizens they represent.
“Reckless spending got Illinois into this mess, yet there was virtually no talk of cutting spending. Illinois already ranks 48th in net population growth, 48th in job growth, and 48th in economic performance, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Look for Illinois to soon rank last in the nation in every one of those categories.”
For additional comment, contact Steve Stanek at sstanek@heartland.org

Filed by Grant Davies

Quinn and Madigan Chat About the Tax Increase

Today is the last day that the "Illinois Combine" can shove the tax increase down your throat with the old batch of elected geniuses. Just as they arranged for you to receive your real estate tax bill until after the election, they are scurrying to get this screw job passed before you can do anything about it.

It's all about timing in Illinois.