"The fairest death tax rate is zero" The Wall Street Journal argues once again today. I would revise their statement to say, "The government should not be among a citizen's heirs." The Journal backs up its position with a bogus supporting argument: "because the money was already taxed when it was earned." The Journal's sword has all the piercing power of a wet noodle.
By the Journal's "logic," if I have a net $1,000 after paying taxes on my income, and then I pay that $1,000 to a carpenter to build a deck, the carpenter's income should not be taxed because I already paid tax on it.
The carpenter, at least, earned the $1,000 by exchanging labor and talent for my money. Most heirs have done nothing except they were begat by the right parents. For the child, conception is a supremely passive act requiring neither talent nor labor on its own part.
Large inheritances do create significant inequalities in opportunity. All of us who were conceived by parents who were poor when they made us and continued to be poor until they left us can list numerous important inequalities of opportunity. Like Andrew Carnegie, I am against inheritance. I am equally against government taking any portion of wealth left by a dead citizen.
Government itself, meaning politics, is all about distributing opportunity unequally. That is exactly why politicians want to rifle the pockets of the dead--so they can distribute opportunity to their favorites.
I propose some examples of how we might create more equal opportunity with what the dead could not take with them.
Let the rule be that inheritance can consist of a house and funds for higher education but no more. If an heir has earned part of the family business, let that ownership be established before the parent's death and bear some recognizable equivalence to work and talent. Make reasonable provision for keeping the business in the family by allowing the heir to pay tax on the remaining ownership interest out of profits or by selling sell it. Require that all wealth remaining after such inheritance be distributed in one of the following ways:
--as a pro-rata tax reduction for all Americans
--as a donation to the qualified charity of the deceased's choice
--paid into an independently operated national endowment whose income would reduce interest rates on student loans or venture capital for first time entrepreneurs
To make this politically popular, call it The Fair Death Stimulus Plan.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Kaufman Income Tax Leadership Act
Herewith I propose the 2nd of a series of very simple laws to fix very complex problems which I immodestly call The Kaufman Acts. The law I propose would have one of two effects—the cleansing of our tax code or of Congress. Should any member of Congress have the courage and wisdom to introduce my Tax Leadership Act, even defeat of the bill would certainly lead to proposals for a much simpler income tax or the defeat of many members of Congress who have made the present tax code a piñata of favors and a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of their fellow citizens.
The Kaufman Income Tax Leadership Act
Whereas, the near impossibility of correctly filling out income tax forms makes lawbreakers out of millions of Americans, and
Whereas, it would be a national disgrace to have our law makers and law breakers be one and the same,
Therefore, the Congress of the United States hereby declares that every member of Congress shall fill out personally his or her income tax forms and declarations, and
Therefore, any Member omitting required information or making an error in calculation shall pay a fine of no less than $1,000.00 or twice the amount of his or her annual tax payment, whichever is larger, and
Therefore, any Member omitting required information or making an error in calculation in two subsequent years shall become ineligible to vote on any tax measure before Congress, and
Therefore, any Member omitting required information or making an error in calculation in filing any three federal tax declarations shall become ineligible to serve in the next Congress or to hold other federal office for five years.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
What Is President Obama Saying To Sudan?
A week ago I referred to the problem of genocide in Sudan as President Obama’s “practice test” in foreign policy. The President, like Sec. of State Clinton said of Sudan’s rulers, “they will be held accountable for the lives lost." During his campaign he used Darfur to distinguish his policies from Bush’s. He agreed with Joe Biden that we should help “enforce a no-fly zone.”
Yesterday well known civil libertarian Nat Hentoff made that proposal the centerpiece of his demand that the President back up words with action that would save lives. He noted that the no-fly zone proposal was proposed again by yet another Obama adviser, General Merrill A. McPeak writing in the Washington Post on March 5.
Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice who once envisioned a bombing campaign to save Sudanese Africans now restricts herself to futile talk with African nations in the UN. Hentoff notes that as Vice President Biden has been silent while the Sudanese government uses its helicopter gunships and bombers to abet the slaughter of black Africans. Hentoff notes that now that France has decided to join NATO, its airbase in Chad would be an ideal place from which to enforce a no-fly zone.
With a voice familiar and respected among civil rights advocates, Hentoff asks, “What, if anything, do you have to say, President Obama, about helping to energize the creation of a no-fly zone so that, on your watch, we can finally say ‘never again’ - and mean it?” Jerry Fowler, the president of the Save Darfur Coalition who supported Obama during his campaign, recently said, "We need presidential engagement and we need it now."
Darfur is quickly passing from the President's practice test to a practical test. So far the president has said little, but his choice of a friend and close adviser as special envoy to Sudan may be a sign that something's in the air. Retired Air Force General Scott Gration is a former fighter pilot.
Yesterday well known civil libertarian Nat Hentoff made that proposal the centerpiece of his demand that the President back up words with action that would save lives. He noted that the no-fly zone proposal was proposed again by yet another Obama adviser, General Merrill A. McPeak writing in the Washington Post on March 5.
Obama’s UN ambassador Susan Rice who once envisioned a bombing campaign to save Sudanese Africans now restricts herself to futile talk with African nations in the UN. Hentoff notes that as Vice President Biden has been silent while the Sudanese government uses its helicopter gunships and bombers to abet the slaughter of black Africans. Hentoff notes that now that France has decided to join NATO, its airbase in Chad would be an ideal place from which to enforce a no-fly zone.
With a voice familiar and respected among civil rights advocates, Hentoff asks, “What, if anything, do you have to say, President Obama, about helping to energize the creation of a no-fly zone so that, on your watch, we can finally say ‘never again’ - and mean it?” Jerry Fowler, the president of the Save Darfur Coalition who supported Obama during his campaign, recently said, "We need presidential engagement and we need it now."
Darfur is quickly passing from the President's practice test to a practical test. So far the president has said little, but his choice of a friend and close adviser as special envoy to Sudan may be a sign that something's in the air. Retired Air Force General Scott Gration is a former fighter pilot.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Bestiality Then And Now
The Florida legislature has just offered a convincing demonstration that the South is no longer the “agrarian South.” After five decades of writing, and now raising a 12 year old son, I have become painfully aware that much of the vocabulary meaningful to one generation is lost to another. (Should I thus explain that agrarian refers to agriculture?)
The Florida event I’m referring to quickly made national news, but for the wrong reason. Florida Democrat state senator Larcenia Bullard had questions about a bill that would once more outlaw bestiality in Florida whose previous law had been declared unconstitutionally vague. (For the younger readers who might not know the word bestiality, suffice to say it has nothing to do with Beasty Boys.)
The new law clarifies the act and exempts dog shows and “animal husbandry”. Senator Bullard was horrified and asked, ''People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?'' After hearing that it was raising and caring for animals, she asked about the Connecticut incident where a chimpanzee attacked a woman, ''So that maybe was the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?''
Bullard’s unfortunate vocabulary gap inspired a viscious attack from television monkey Keith Olbermann who nominated her for his “Worst Person In The World” award. While Bullard’s gaffe was funny, it hardly merits Olbermann’s attack on a minority politician (or any person).
We could write off the gaffe as a generational thing, the South and especially Florida no longer being agrarian, except for Senator Bullard’s qualifications. She was born in the decidedly agrarian South Carolina in 1947. She has a bachelor’s degree from Antioch University, an AA from Temple University, and a Masters of Social Work from Nova University. She began her professional life as a teacher and became an educational consultant. She sits on the Pre-K to 12 Education Committee, the Higher Education Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee.
Mocking poor Sen. Bullard misses the real issue. Her gaffe should make one wonder how any native born citizen can graduate high school, earn three degrees in higher education, become a teacher, become a government official shaping public education, and sit on a committee that oversees agricultural law and not know the meaning of the 600 year old English word still in good standing.
Footnote: Sixteen states permit bestiality. In a time when strong currents in our culture have created the ‘sexual revolution’ and have spread increasing acceptance of once banned sexual practices and pairing, it’s worth noting that the Florida bill was inspired when a Senator promoting animal rights heard that a man making love to a goat had accidentally strangled the animal by grabbing its collar too tightly.
The sponsor is trying to balance human rights against animal rights, although the language does have a Puritan flavor to it. It bans acts in which the human obtains “sexual gratification,” or pleasure. It is an advance, nevertheless, from September 1642 when a jury in the Plymouth Colony found a teenager guilty of bestiality, and before the boy was executed, “first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law.”
The Puritans, of course, knew the word husbandry well. We have expanded our tolerance but only changed our vocabulary.
The Florida event I’m referring to quickly made national news, but for the wrong reason. Florida Democrat state senator Larcenia Bullard had questions about a bill that would once more outlaw bestiality in Florida whose previous law had been declared unconstitutionally vague. (For the younger readers who might not know the word bestiality, suffice to say it has nothing to do with Beasty Boys.)
The new law clarifies the act and exempts dog shows and “animal husbandry”. Senator Bullard was horrified and asked, ''People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?'' After hearing that it was raising and caring for animals, she asked about the Connecticut incident where a chimpanzee attacked a woman, ''So that maybe was the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?''
Bullard’s unfortunate vocabulary gap inspired a viscious attack from television monkey Keith Olbermann who nominated her for his “Worst Person In The World” award. While Bullard’s gaffe was funny, it hardly merits Olbermann’s attack on a minority politician (or any person).
We could write off the gaffe as a generational thing, the South and especially Florida no longer being agrarian, except for Senator Bullard’s qualifications. She was born in the decidedly agrarian South Carolina in 1947. She has a bachelor’s degree from Antioch University, an AA from Temple University, and a Masters of Social Work from Nova University. She began her professional life as a teacher and became an educational consultant. She sits on the Pre-K to 12 Education Committee, the Higher Education Committee and the Senate Agricultural Committee.
Mocking poor Sen. Bullard misses the real issue. Her gaffe should make one wonder how any native born citizen can graduate high school, earn three degrees in higher education, become a teacher, become a government official shaping public education, and sit on a committee that oversees agricultural law and not know the meaning of the 600 year old English word still in good standing.
Footnote: Sixteen states permit bestiality. In a time when strong currents in our culture have created the ‘sexual revolution’ and have spread increasing acceptance of once banned sexual practices and pairing, it’s worth noting that the Florida bill was inspired when a Senator promoting animal rights heard that a man making love to a goat had accidentally strangled the animal by grabbing its collar too tightly.
The sponsor is trying to balance human rights against animal rights, although the language does have a Puritan flavor to it. It bans acts in which the human obtains “sexual gratification,” or pleasure. It is an advance, nevertheless, from September 1642 when a jury in the Plymouth Colony found a teenager guilty of bestiality, and before the boy was executed, “first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law.”
The Puritans, of course, knew the word husbandry well. We have expanded our tolerance but only changed our vocabulary.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Obama, Frank, Dodd and AIG
Yesterday Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd were lashing insurance giant AIG for the bonuses paid to keep high level employees working on a selloff of assets so it could repay money loaned to it by taxpayers.
Yesterday Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored firms for which Frank and Dodd helped in their cover-up of disastrous lending and accounting and which they sheltered from the eyes of regulators, disclosed that they were paying millions in bonuses to hundreds of top employees.
Fannie Mae, the government mortgage company will pay chief operating officer Michael Williams a retention award of $611,000 this year, more than double his award last year. His base salary $676,000 a year. For leading the operations that cost tax payers billions, Mr. Williams will receive over $1 million this year. Vice president David Hisey will get a $517,000 bonus and two other vice presidents will get $470,000 each. Freddie Mac has not yet revealed its bonuses.
What is the reason employees of these government firms that have been big donors to the campaigns of Frank, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Obama will get such rewards for losing $108 billion of taxpayer money last year? The same reason that AIG gave for its bonuses.
James Lockhart directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, and explains that, "it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees." In addition the government has promised each of its companies $200 billion more of taxpayer money.
Barney Frank called for the names of all AIG employees who received bonuses despite several threats against their lives. Will he also call for the names of hundreds of Fannie and Freddie employees? While he’s at it, will he also reveal to which members of Congress they gave donations?
Perhaps it will take presidential pressure. President Obama has also has called for AIG executives to give back their bonuses. “It's about our fundamental values," he said.
As a brand new Senator Obama somehow quickly became the recipient of FNMA’s second largest campaign donations. AIG’s new Chief Executive asked for his employees to return their bonuses. Will our new chief executive in the White House ask the same of his employees? Private enterprise has set the example but so far the President has failed to follow. Are we too audacious to hope for change?
Yesterday Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored firms for which Frank and Dodd helped in their cover-up of disastrous lending and accounting and which they sheltered from the eyes of regulators, disclosed that they were paying millions in bonuses to hundreds of top employees.
Fannie Mae, the government mortgage company will pay chief operating officer Michael Williams a retention award of $611,000 this year, more than double his award last year. His base salary $676,000 a year. For leading the operations that cost tax payers billions, Mr. Williams will receive over $1 million this year. Vice president David Hisey will get a $517,000 bonus and two other vice presidents will get $470,000 each. Freddie Mac has not yet revealed its bonuses.
What is the reason employees of these government firms that have been big donors to the campaigns of Frank, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Obama will get such rewards for losing $108 billion of taxpayer money last year? The same reason that AIG gave for its bonuses.
James Lockhart directs the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA, which regulates Fannie and Freddie, and explains that, "it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees." In addition the government has promised each of its companies $200 billion more of taxpayer money.
Barney Frank called for the names of all AIG employees who received bonuses despite several threats against their lives. Will he also call for the names of hundreds of Fannie and Freddie employees? While he’s at it, will he also reveal to which members of Congress they gave donations?
Perhaps it will take presidential pressure. President Obama has also has called for AIG executives to give back their bonuses. “It's about our fundamental values," he said.
As a brand new Senator Obama somehow quickly became the recipient of FNMA’s second largest campaign donations. AIG’s new Chief Executive asked for his employees to return their bonuses. Will our new chief executive in the White House ask the same of his employees? Private enterprise has set the example but so far the President has failed to follow. Are we too audacious to hope for change?
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Kaufman Fair Pay Act
Herewith I immodestly and perhaps naively propose the first of a series of very simple laws to fix very complex problems. I will immodestly call them The Kaufman Acts.
The Kaufman Fair Pay Act is four simple clauses.
Whereas, members of Congress have overwhelmingly gone on record as declaring that corporate executives should not grant themselves salary increases and bonuses when their stockholders are losing money or reward themselves more grandly than their stockholders,
Therefore, the Congress of the United States hereby rescinds the automatic pay raises members have voted themselves, and
Therefore, Congressional salaries shall be reset to the levels last determined by an open vote in Congress, and
Therefore, the annual salary of every member of Congress shall rise or fall by the same percentage as the rise or fall of the inflation adjusted income of the average American taxpayer.
The Kaufman Fair Pay Act is four simple clauses.
Whereas, members of Congress have overwhelmingly gone on record as declaring that corporate executives should not grant themselves salary increases and bonuses when their stockholders are losing money or reward themselves more grandly than their stockholders,
Therefore, the Congress of the United States hereby rescinds the automatic pay raises members have voted themselves, and
Therefore, Congressional salaries shall be reset to the levels last determined by an open vote in Congress, and
Therefore, the annual salary of every member of Congress shall rise or fall by the same percentage as the rise or fall of the inflation adjusted income of the average American taxpayer.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
President Obama's Practice Test
Must President Obama find his equivalent to Reagan’s “Evil Empire” and Bush’s “Axis of Evil"? Even if he can find a euphemism for a word many once made synonymous with what they said was an arrogant righteousness, no one can deny the nature of the men who govern Sudan.
New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof has seen many horrors around the world, but wrote of Sudan, “nothing prepared me for Darfur, where systematic murder, rape, and mutilation are taking place on a vast scale, simply based on the tribe of the victim. What I saw reminded me why people say that genocide is the worst evil of which human beings are capable.”
In addition, the essence of the situation is racism—ruling ethnic Arabs enslaving and slaughtering black Africans. On March 4 the International Court indicted al-Bashir on 7 counts of war crimes. As long ago as 2004 Secretary of State Colin Powell found bipartisan support when he said al-Bashir’s regime was guilty of genocide. Can even a moral relativist doubt that whether Sudan is on an axis or just a point, its regime is evil?
This week Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir ordered all major foreign aid agencies out of the country. Secretary of State Clinton said the move would create "untold misery and suffering." She also warned the Sudanese regime that it would be “held responsible for every single death that occurs in those camps, because by their expulsion of the aid workers ... they are putting those 1.4 million lives at risk."
Now President Obama must fulfill that promise or lose his credibility in world affairs. So, how will he hold al-Bashir responsible? Broadly described his policy choices are three:
--diplomatic pressure and criticism
--economic and political sanctions
--military action which might be through the UN, by a coalition, or unilateral
--do nothing
The President campaigned on and entered office with a promise to resolve international crises through diplomacy and coalition building, the kind of solution he said Bush should have used in Iraq. So far the preferred option is the same option that has failed for more than four years—diplomacy and consultation with the UN. The immediate goal, says Sec. Clinton, is nothing more than reversing the expulsion order.
If it works, where are we? Foreign aid and humanitarian agencies have been in Sudan for more than a decade, and neither they nor diplomacy have stopped the slaughter. The UN Security Council offers little hope since China and Russia oppose sanctions and will certainly oppose stronger action. Besides, UN sanctions in Iraq were widely criticized for both increasing the suffering of Iraqis and funding Hussein’s weapons program through UN corruption.
The situation President Obama faces in Sudan is not very different from the situation President Bush faced in Iraq in 2002, except that Sudan has far less strategic importance, and there’s not even a suspicion Sudan poses an external military threat. That leaves President Obama to try to pull off a diplomatic miracle or use force.
The only other option is to say we care deeply, stir the world to sympathy with moving speeches, and watch the slaughter continue. Obama has professed great admiration for Teddy Roosevelt whose policy was “talk softly but carry a big stick.” Talk much and do little might fit under the Nixonian definition of realpolitik, but it won’t satisfy the desire for hope and change.
Joe Biden during the campaign made his famous warning that a foreign power would put Obama to a serious test in his first months in office. Sudan is not that test, but it may be a test of the President’s ability to pass the coming test.
New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof has seen many horrors around the world, but wrote of Sudan, “nothing prepared me for Darfur, where systematic murder, rape, and mutilation are taking place on a vast scale, simply based on the tribe of the victim. What I saw reminded me why people say that genocide is the worst evil of which human beings are capable.”
In addition, the essence of the situation is racism—ruling ethnic Arabs enslaving and slaughtering black Africans. On March 4 the International Court indicted al-Bashir on 7 counts of war crimes. As long ago as 2004 Secretary of State Colin Powell found bipartisan support when he said al-Bashir’s regime was guilty of genocide. Can even a moral relativist doubt that whether Sudan is on an axis or just a point, its regime is evil?
This week Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir ordered all major foreign aid agencies out of the country. Secretary of State Clinton said the move would create "untold misery and suffering." She also warned the Sudanese regime that it would be “held responsible for every single death that occurs in those camps, because by their expulsion of the aid workers ... they are putting those 1.4 million lives at risk."
Now President Obama must fulfill that promise or lose his credibility in world affairs. So, how will he hold al-Bashir responsible? Broadly described his policy choices are three:
--diplomatic pressure and criticism
--economic and political sanctions
--military action which might be through the UN, by a coalition, or unilateral
--do nothing
The President campaigned on and entered office with a promise to resolve international crises through diplomacy and coalition building, the kind of solution he said Bush should have used in Iraq. So far the preferred option is the same option that has failed for more than four years—diplomacy and consultation with the UN. The immediate goal, says Sec. Clinton, is nothing more than reversing the expulsion order.
If it works, where are we? Foreign aid and humanitarian agencies have been in Sudan for more than a decade, and neither they nor diplomacy have stopped the slaughter. The UN Security Council offers little hope since China and Russia oppose sanctions and will certainly oppose stronger action. Besides, UN sanctions in Iraq were widely criticized for both increasing the suffering of Iraqis and funding Hussein’s weapons program through UN corruption.
The situation President Obama faces in Sudan is not very different from the situation President Bush faced in Iraq in 2002, except that Sudan has far less strategic importance, and there’s not even a suspicion Sudan poses an external military threat. That leaves President Obama to try to pull off a diplomatic miracle or use force.
The only other option is to say we care deeply, stir the world to sympathy with moving speeches, and watch the slaughter continue. Obama has professed great admiration for Teddy Roosevelt whose policy was “talk softly but carry a big stick.” Talk much and do little might fit under the Nixonian definition of realpolitik, but it won’t satisfy the desire for hope and change.
Joe Biden during the campaign made his famous warning that a foreign power would put Obama to a serious test in his first months in office. Sudan is not that test, but it may be a test of the President’s ability to pass the coming test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
