Christmas and paying our fair share | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

Christmas is family time

   I am certainly glad that the Prez was able to escape from D.C. and spend Christmas with his family. Adding to the pleasure is the idea of "going home" for Christmas. Going home?? Just where is "home" for this man. Is it Hawaii where the anointed one spent part of his youth, or is it Indonesia, where he spent another part of his youth?? Or could it be Chicago where his life seems to have been centered following college. In Hawaii he attended Punahou which is a private school in Honolulu for the offspring of the elite. Surely it was his grandmother who got him into Punahou. And, speaking about his grandmother, we have not been treated to any reports (of which I am aware) of his visiting her grave during any of his recent "vacations". Do you suppose he did?? No one seems to know much about the education he was exposed to in Indonesia. Does anyone remember when the anointed one was a state legislator, or a U.S. Senator, how many vacations he spent at "home" (in Hawaii - during a time when his grandmother was still alive)?? It's also interesting that they never seem to "vacation" in Michelle's home town (Chicago) - but then who would want to go to Chicago in the middle of the winter. When you stop to think about it, who would want to go to Chicago at all?? Today a one-stop first class ticket to Hawaii is in the neighborhood of three thousand dollars per person. Surely it would have cost less when the anointed one was a state or federal legislator. I have no idea how many vacations they took in Hawaii when they would have been picking up their own tab - but I am willing to guess that it was somewhere between zero and zero. Of course when the taxpayer is picking up the tab, a lot of thought is not likely given to the several million dollar price tag. (The flight hour cost for AF-1 is over $180K/hour. It's about t 10 hour round trip so that AF-1 cost is approaching $2M The cost for the ancillary aircraft is on top of that, very likely adding that much more to the tab. So much for "going home" for Christmas... Any way, a belated Merry Christmas!!

Paying one's fair share

   It never fails to amaze me how easily we are duped. We hear the Dems telling us that the rich folks aren't paying their fair share and we should increase their tax rate - presumably so folks like Warren Buffett (no relation to Jimmy - as far as I know) can pay taxes at a higher rate than their hired help. The implication is that by increasing the rate we charge the rich, the more revenue the government will realize. Way too many of us buy into that notion hook, line, and sinker, which is truly unfortunate, because, even though it seems to make sense on the surface, it will not stand up to scrutiny. And, don't forget, when you have the kind or money that Mr. Buffett has, you can hire the very best tax attorneys or CPAs or EAs to shield a great deal of your income from taxes - as he obviously has done. And his latest offer to match any congress-person's contribution to reduce the national debt sounds like little more than an effort to get his name in the news again. He could likely match the total income of the entire Congress without putting any stress on his financial status. So what's the big deal??

   Actually, there would seem to be a rather straight forward way to solve Mr. Buffett's problem. We could do that by limiting the amount of income (Adjusted Gross Income - AGI that is) that can be taxed at capital gain rates to say not to exceed 10% of AGI. That is to say that no more than 10% of one's income can be taxed at the lower (currently 15%) capital gains rate. Add to that severe restrictions on how large a deduction can be taken for charitable contributions and then allow the remainder of their income to be taxed at ordinary income rates applicable to the individual. That should take care of Mr. Buffet's problem. Do you really suppose he (and a lot of his rich friends) would like that??

   The seemingly incessant talking points we hear go something like: We need to raise the rates on the rich so they will be paying their fair share (read: so we can increase our revenue). Failing to do so is costing the treasury tons of money. But wait!! Take a look at the numbers. The bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003. When the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 the top 1% of taxpayers paid 33.89% of the taxes. In 2003 they were paying 34.27% of the taxes. Since then the lowest percentage of the taxes that they have paid is 36.73% in 2009 (not bad during the worst "downturn" since the real depression). The highest they have paid was just a little over 40% in 2007. Interesting: Lower tax rates = increased revenue from the so called "rich" - just the reverse of the "conventional wisdom" the Dems are peddling. "Fair" has nothing to do with tax rates for the rich. Fair to the folks who want the rich to pick up more of the tab is increasing the 45% (or so) of the population who pay absolutely no federal income tax, or perhaps even end up "paying" a negative income tax (i.e. receiving a tax refund without ever to pay any tax).Yes, it happens. And it happens way more than many of us could even imagine.

   Do you suppose the OWS crowd didn't really know what they were protesting about?? It surely didn't sound like it. Queen Nancy spoke as though she understood what they stood for and said that she supported them. That would seem to add credence to that notion that none of them (including the Queen - or perhaps especially the Queen) knew what their beef was. If they should become a political power and elect some OWS supporters to congress, perhaps then we will find out - after they have been elected, that is - much like she (Queen Nancy) told us how to find out what was in Obamacare. That may work for her, but...

   It seemed somewhat incongruous that the OWS crowd claimed to be part of the 99% when everything they seemed to be preaching was much more closely aligned with the 46% folks. (That would the folks who pay no taxes and manage to sustain themselves at everyone else's expense.) I suppose if one had no self-respect or pride, that would certainly be an attractive alternative. Otherwise, what do you suppose ever became of the "Protestant work ethic" that made our nation the greatest in the world?? It certainly didn't seem to be apparent in any of the complaints we heard from the OWS folks or the "raise the taxes on the rich" folks

   D'ya think??