On 18 April 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial called “The 30¢ Tax Premium,” indicating that for the average taxpayer, it costs him $1.30 to send the government $1.00 of tax revenue. This added cost comes from the need to pay the government $1.00 of tax plus the cost of his own time spent filing and complying with the tax code plus the tax collection costs of the IRS plus the tax compliance outlays that individuals and businesses pay to help them file their taxes.
I can identify with these facts, because in our personal 2010 tax returns to the Feds and to the State of Colorado, Nancy and I paid $6,313 while paying $261.75 to H & R Block for our filing costs. That amounts to paying 4% of our money trying to comply with the tax codes. Four percent does not seem like a lot of money; but, for us, $261 is a big bite. We would like to avoid that outlay of money if possible.
Some might say that we should have filed our tax returns by ourselves and not used H & R Block. Although our tax return was relatively simple, one of our 1099’s from an income source did not arrive in our mailbox until 15 April. This caused a last minute need to file an amended tax form, a much more complicated procedure than we are capable of performing. We are glad we used H & R Block, but it costs us too much to file our income tax reports.
What is the solution to this problem? A tax reform to a simple flat-rate tax with no deductions would significantly reduce the current complexity inherent in our progressive tax system, which is full of loopholes, exemptions and special interest carve-outs.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Parental Effects On Their Children
In 2003, I did a study on the sex habits of young adults in Nigeria. An interesting and useful fact came out of that study that is worth revisiting.
One question was asked on my research questionnaire was, “Have you ever heard your pastor tell you to avoid sexual intercourse outside of marriage?” A “yes” answer on that question had absolutely no correlation with the avoidance of illicit sex.
Another question was asked of my respondents: “Have your parents ever told you to avoid sex outside of marriage?” A “yes” answer to that question had a positive correlation with abstinence of sex outside of marriage.
The point is that parents have a decided and important role to play in guiding their children away from sex outside of marriage. Teenagers may not appear to be listening to their parents, but often they are. Pastors have relatively little influence on sex habits; but parents should certainly exert all the influence they can muster to help their children reach the wedding day with integrity and without a load of guilt on their consciences about their past behavior.
One question was asked on my research questionnaire was, “Have you ever heard your pastor tell you to avoid sexual intercourse outside of marriage?” A “yes” answer on that question had absolutely no correlation with the avoidance of illicit sex.
Another question was asked of my respondents: “Have your parents ever told you to avoid sex outside of marriage?” A “yes” answer to that question had a positive correlation with abstinence of sex outside of marriage.
The point is that parents have a decided and important role to play in guiding their children away from sex outside of marriage. Teenagers may not appear to be listening to their parents, but often they are. Pastors have relatively little influence on sex habits; but parents should certainly exert all the influence they can muster to help their children reach the wedding day with integrity and without a load of guilt on their consciences about their past behavior.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Best Pro-Life Experience Ever!
Yesterday, Nancy and I spent most of the day at an event on the Auraria College Campus in downtown Denver. The event was the showing of huge Pro-Life signs and posters by the college organization, Justice For All. The pictures revealed very graphic portrayals of actual abortion results and asked pointed questions of the observers about their attitudes toward abortion.
Nancy and I and about 30 volunteers circulated through the crowd asking the people what they thought about the demonstration and dialoguing with them about their attitudes toward abortion. Of course, we found that the majority of the students there were “Pro-Choice,” but their Pro-Choice position was only relative in many cases, i.e., a lot of them were opposed to late term abortions but in favor of early abortions.
The striking thing about those “interviews” on the street was that many of the people we talked to had not adequately thought out their position. One young man told me that he had no objection to the killing of unborn babies. Nor did he object to the idea of killing babies who were already born, nor anyone else, for that matter. He even told me that he would not even object if someone were to kill him! (Now, THAT, is dedication to a belief, if you ask me!!)
Of course, some in the crowd had actually done some deep thinking about the issue, and they sometimes concluded that abortion is an acceptable procedure. Nancy and I and the other counselors would reason with them, trying to show them that it is really important to defend unborn human life; but their beliefs were almost always deeply ingrained in their minds. We concluded by asking them to look closely at the pictures and ask themselves the question: “Do you think that, looking at those pictures, abortion can be a right decision?”
The day was exhilarating to both Nancy and me. The opportunity to speak the words of Christ and His truth into a harsh culture and to practice reasoning with hard hearts was an inspiration to us.
We were very impressed with the organization, Justice For All. If any of my readers would like to get more information about this organization, I would invite them to look at the organization’s web site. www.JFAweb.org.
Nancy and I and about 30 volunteers circulated through the crowd asking the people what they thought about the demonstration and dialoguing with them about their attitudes toward abortion. Of course, we found that the majority of the students there were “Pro-Choice,” but their Pro-Choice position was only relative in many cases, i.e., a lot of them were opposed to late term abortions but in favor of early abortions.
The striking thing about those “interviews” on the street was that many of the people we talked to had not adequately thought out their position. One young man told me that he had no objection to the killing of unborn babies. Nor did he object to the idea of killing babies who were already born, nor anyone else, for that matter. He even told me that he would not even object if someone were to kill him! (Now, THAT, is dedication to a belief, if you ask me!!)
Of course, some in the crowd had actually done some deep thinking about the issue, and they sometimes concluded that abortion is an acceptable procedure. Nancy and I and the other counselors would reason with them, trying to show them that it is really important to defend unborn human life; but their beliefs were almost always deeply ingrained in their minds. We concluded by asking them to look closely at the pictures and ask themselves the question: “Do you think that, looking at those pictures, abortion can be a right decision?”
The day was exhilarating to both Nancy and me. The opportunity to speak the words of Christ and His truth into a harsh culture and to practice reasoning with hard hearts was an inspiration to us.
We were very impressed with the organization, Justice For All. If any of my readers would like to get more information about this organization, I would invite them to look at the organization’s web site. www.JFAweb.org.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
How to Influence the Government via E-mail
We, Americans have the privilege of freedom of speech. We are entitled to express our opinions to our government representatives. They have the right to pay attention to what we say or to ignore our opinions. Sometimes, they actually listen to what we are saying. Especially, they will listen when large numbers of constituents write to them on the same subject. Following are some directions on how to contact our government and our representatives:
Go to USA.gov. You will see a list of contacts you might like to make on the left side of the page starting with the President and Vice President of the United States. Below, you will see listed U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State Representatives, and then agencies you might like to contact. Follow the links, and you will be able to contact the person to whom you might want to speak.Here are a few tips on what to say:
1) Write each e-mail concerning only one issue.
2) Put the main point in the subject line. Very likely that is all that your addressee will read. For instance, your subject line should read something like this—Vote Yes on S. 528, the STAND UP Act.
3) Whenever you can, always refer to legislative bills by number as well as name.
4) Familiarize yourself with Thomas.loc.gov, the web page for the U.S. Congress and Senate, you should read at least the summary of a bill you are petitioning about. Often, advocates for a bill may unfairly represent that bill on the web or in an e-mail. Always try to look at the bill, yourself—it only takes a minute to do that.
5) In examining state legislation, go to USA.gov and choose State Legislators; choose the state; then, choose bills. I have found that in most states, when looking for a concise and accurate summary of a bill, it is best to look at “fiscal impact” in the bill menu.
6) Limit your message to one or two short paragraphs. The longer your message, the less likely it will be read.
7) Be sure to mention how this issue will affect you.
8) Write to legislators whom you know disagree with your point of view—they need to hear from you, too; and they are the ones you really want to influence, anyway.
9) Be sure to include the President or the Governor in your addressee list. Do not write only to Senators or Representatives.
10) Write to the same representatives repeatedly on the same issue. This is especially important when writing to United States legislators or the President. Those representatives will seldom read your e-mail; but they have aides who read and tabulate issues for their bosses. The legislator will only see the tabulation of the issues.
11) Be courteous always.
Go to USA.gov. You will see a list of contacts you might like to make on the left side of the page starting with the President and Vice President of the United States. Below, you will see listed U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Governors, State Representatives, and then agencies you might like to contact. Follow the links, and you will be able to contact the person to whom you might want to speak.Here are a few tips on what to say:
1) Write each e-mail concerning only one issue.
2) Put the main point in the subject line. Very likely that is all that your addressee will read. For instance, your subject line should read something like this—Vote Yes on S. 528, the STAND UP Act.
3) Whenever you can, always refer to legislative bills by number as well as name.
4) Familiarize yourself with Thomas.loc.gov, the web page for the U.S. Congress and Senate, you should read at least the summary of a bill you are petitioning about. Often, advocates for a bill may unfairly represent that bill on the web or in an e-mail. Always try to look at the bill, yourself—it only takes a minute to do that.
5) In examining state legislation, go to USA.gov and choose State Legislators; choose the state; then, choose bills. I have found that in most states, when looking for a concise and accurate summary of a bill, it is best to look at “fiscal impact” in the bill menu.
6) Limit your message to one or two short paragraphs. The longer your message, the less likely it will be read.
7) Be sure to mention how this issue will affect you.
8) Write to legislators whom you know disagree with your point of view—they need to hear from you, too; and they are the ones you really want to influence, anyway.
9) Be sure to include the President or the Governor in your addressee list. Do not write only to Senators or Representatives.
10) Write to the same representatives repeatedly on the same issue. This is especially important when writing to United States legislators or the President. Those representatives will seldom read your e-mail; but they have aides who read and tabulate issues for their bosses. The legislator will only see the tabulation of the issues.
11) Be courteous always.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Is Common Sense Returning to Government?
Well, well, it seems that the longer the Obama Administration remains in power, the more it returns to the policies of George W. Bush. How strange!
Ever since President Obama took office, our problems with the economy have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses. (However, that last problem can hardly be laid at the foot of President Obama, alone.)
The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes a $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs.
Now, we are seeing more and more of President Bush’s policies being resurrected to remedy the problems we have at this time. Even the closing of Guantanamo seems to have been cancelled.
In my opinion, the most problematic part of the current governmental formula is its discouragement of private business. As I noted in my last blog post, Blacks in America are recognizing these problems with the welfare state; and they are migrating to parts of the United States where business and employment possibilities are better.
I think the new GOP Path to Prosperity being proposed by the House Budget Committee is very probably the best policy for our country at this time. I think we should try it. The current policy is just not working.
This blog post was partly inspired by articles in the Wall Street Journal of 5 April 2011, pages A15 and A13.
Ever since President Obama took office, our problems with the economy have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses. (However, that last problem can hardly be laid at the foot of President Obama, alone.)
The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes a $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs.
Now, we are seeing more and more of President Bush’s policies being resurrected to remedy the problems we have at this time. Even the closing of Guantanamo seems to have been cancelled.
In my opinion, the most problematic part of the current governmental formula is its discouragement of private business. As I noted in my last blog post, Blacks in America are recognizing these problems with the welfare state; and they are migrating to parts of the United States where business and employment possibilities are better.
I think the new GOP Path to Prosperity being proposed by the House Budget Committee is very probably the best policy for our country at this time. I think we should try it. The current policy is just not working.
This blog post was partly inspired by articles in the Wall Street Journal of 5 April 2011, pages A15 and A13.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Demographic Changes in the United States
This blog post was written by William Sowell and published on Townhall.com 3/29/11.
The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, people are voting with their feet against places where the liberal, welfare-state policies favored by the intelligentsia are most deeply entrenched.
When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. Both whites and blacks are leaving California, the poster state for the liberal, welfare-state and nanny-state philosophy.
Whites are also fleeing the big northeastern liberal, welfare states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as the same kinds of states in the midwest, such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.
Although California has long been a prime destination of Asian immigrants and the homes of their descendants, the 2010 census shows a striking increase in the Asian American population of Nevada, more so than any other state. Nevada is adjacent to California but has no income tax nor the hostile climate for business that California maintains.
The movement of the black population-- especially educated young blacks-- is the most striking of all. In the past, the massive movements of millions of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was one of the epic migrations of a people-- comparable in size with the millions of the Irish who fled the famine in Ireland in the 1840s or the millions of Jews who fled persecution in Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In more recent decades, blacks have been moving back to the South, however. While the overall black population of the northeastern and midwestern states has not declined in the past ten years, except in Michigan and Illinois, the net increase of the black population nationwide has increasingly been in the South. About half of the national growth of the black population took place in the South in the 1970s, two-thirds in the 1990s and three-quarters in the past 10 years.
While the mass migrations of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was to places where there were already established black communities, such as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, much of the current movement of blacks is away from existing concentrations of black populations.
Blacks are moving to suburbs, and even to cities like Minneapolis. Overall, the racial residential segregation patterns are declining in the great majority of the largest major metropolitan areas.
Among blacks who moved, the proportions who were in their prime -- from 20 to 40 years of age-- were greater than in the black population at large, and college degrees were more common among them than in the black population at large. In short, with blacks, as with other racial or ethnic groups, those with better prospects are leaving the states that are repelling their most productive citizens in general with liberal policies.
Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.
It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people have been the ones who fled.
Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy.
As whites were the first to start leaving Detroit, its then mayor Coleman Young saw this only as an exodus of people who were likely to vote against him, enhancing his re-election prospects.
But what was good for Mayor Young was disastrous for Detroit. There is a lesson here somewhere, but it is very doubtful if either the intelligentsia or the politicians will learn it.
The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, people are voting with their feet against places where the liberal, welfare-state policies favored by the intelligentsia are most deeply entrenched.
When you break it down by race and ethnicity, it is all too painfully clear what is happening. Both whites and blacks are leaving California, the poster state for the liberal, welfare-state and nanny-state philosophy.
Whites are also fleeing the big northeastern liberal, welfare states like Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as well as the same kinds of states in the midwest, such as Michigan, Ohio and Illinois.
Although California has long been a prime destination of Asian immigrants and the homes of their descendants, the 2010 census shows a striking increase in the Asian American population of Nevada, more so than any other state. Nevada is adjacent to California but has no income tax nor the hostile climate for business that California maintains.
The movement of the black population-- especially educated young blacks-- is the most striking of all. In the past, the massive movements of millions of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was one of the epic migrations of a people-- comparable in size with the millions of the Irish who fled the famine in Ireland in the 1840s or the millions of Jews who fled persecution in Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In more recent decades, blacks have been moving back to the South, however. While the overall black population of the northeastern and midwestern states has not declined in the past ten years, except in Michigan and Illinois, the net increase of the black population nationwide has increasingly been in the South. About half of the national growth of the black population took place in the South in the 1970s, two-thirds in the 1990s and three-quarters in the past 10 years.
While the mass migrations of blacks out of the South in the early 20th century was to places where there were already established black communities, such as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, much of the current movement of blacks is away from existing concentrations of black populations.
Blacks are moving to suburbs, and even to cities like Minneapolis. Overall, the racial residential segregation patterns are declining in the great majority of the largest major metropolitan areas.
Among blacks who moved, the proportions who were in their prime -- from 20 to 40 years of age-- were greater than in the black population at large, and college degrees were more common among them than in the black population at large. In short, with blacks, as with other racial or ethnic groups, those with better prospects are leaving the states that are repelling their most productive citizens in general with liberal policies.
Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.
It was not despair that fueled the riot. It was the riot which marked the beginning of the decline of Detroit to its current state of despair. Detroit's population today is only half of what it once was, and its most productive people have been the ones who fled.
Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run-- and elections are held in the short run. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy.
As whites were the first to start leaving Detroit, its then mayor Coleman Young saw this only as an exodus of people who were likely to vote against him, enhancing his re-election prospects.
But what was good for Mayor Young was disastrous for Detroit. There is a lesson here somewhere, but it is very doubtful if either the intelligentsia or the politicians will learn it.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Price of Taxing the Rich
The more I look at the economic situation of the United States, the more sympathy I have for economists and politician/bureaucrats—their task seems almost impossible.
The genius of the American economic experiment has been that our society has ever sought to increase the gross domestic product and to distribute the benefits evenly.
Most states are funded mainly by income taxes. Now, we are facing a situation where the incomes of some few families are going up rapidly, and this should be producing lots of tax money for the states. However, state/federal budgets are in deficit. Why has this happened?
Californians have studied this phenomenon most closely, where the distress over the economy is most acute. In California, before the recession, half of the state’s income came from the top 1% of its earners, i.e., those households with incomes above $490,000/year.
It has been found that the highest income groups experience the greatest income volatility when anything happens to the economy or to the progressive tax structure, which we have in almost all states and in the Federal income tax system, i.e., the higher the income, the higher the tax bracket.
Many people, mostly Democrats, have thought that to save failing state and national economies, it is necessary to tax the wealthy as heavily as possible in order to fund lots more government programs and to distribute wealth more evenly. This sounds very logical; but this approach has its difficulties.
The situation that now exists is one in which the top earners are paying very high taxes; and those taxes are driving the people with the least money in the high tax bracket out of the high bracket because their income has volatilized downward. The others in that high tax bracket, however, have figured out how to make lots of money due to the exit of their lower income competitors. This effect is producing an even greater spread in the income of Americans, with the very rich becoming even richer. Of course, the very rich are paying lots of income tax; and they are keeping the government tax income up. But…the problem is that as the income of the people who are losing net value and income declines, they are not investing in the economy. For that reason, the economy is lagging—despite the fact that the very rich are making a lot of money.
The logical imperative for government and economists, today, is to keep the base of upper income people very broad and the tax rate low. That goal is hard to reach; but raising taxes at a time like this is only exacerbating the problem. It is driving many rich people out of the investment mode and making the very rich even richer, though fewer in number.
This blog post was inspired by articles in the Wall Street Journal, 26 March 2011, pages C1 and C2.
The genius of the American economic experiment has been that our society has ever sought to increase the gross domestic product and to distribute the benefits evenly.
Most states are funded mainly by income taxes. Now, we are facing a situation where the incomes of some few families are going up rapidly, and this should be producing lots of tax money for the states. However, state/federal budgets are in deficit. Why has this happened?
Californians have studied this phenomenon most closely, where the distress over the economy is most acute. In California, before the recession, half of the state’s income came from the top 1% of its earners, i.e., those households with incomes above $490,000/year.
It has been found that the highest income groups experience the greatest income volatility when anything happens to the economy or to the progressive tax structure, which we have in almost all states and in the Federal income tax system, i.e., the higher the income, the higher the tax bracket.
Many people, mostly Democrats, have thought that to save failing state and national economies, it is necessary to tax the wealthy as heavily as possible in order to fund lots more government programs and to distribute wealth more evenly. This sounds very logical; but this approach has its difficulties.
The situation that now exists is one in which the top earners are paying very high taxes; and those taxes are driving the people with the least money in the high tax bracket out of the high bracket because their income has volatilized downward. The others in that high tax bracket, however, have figured out how to make lots of money due to the exit of their lower income competitors. This effect is producing an even greater spread in the income of Americans, with the very rich becoming even richer. Of course, the very rich are paying lots of income tax; and they are keeping the government tax income up. But…the problem is that as the income of the people who are losing net value and income declines, they are not investing in the economy. For that reason, the economy is lagging—despite the fact that the very rich are making a lot of money.
The logical imperative for government and economists, today, is to keep the base of upper income people very broad and the tax rate low. That goal is hard to reach; but raising taxes at a time like this is only exacerbating the problem. It is driving many rich people out of the investment mode and making the very rich even richer, though fewer in number.
This blog post was inspired by articles in the Wall Street Journal, 26 March 2011, pages C1 and C2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
