Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Taxes
Here comes Fox News, the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, trying to stymie any compromise on the deficit.
Fox wants us to drive off the fiscal cliff, so they are attempting to yank the wheel. They are doing so by saying that closing loopholes will mean cuts to:
"-- Medicare benefits for senior
-- Capital gains rates
-- Earned income tax credit
-- Charitable contributions"
Of course this is not the only approach to tax reform. This is just the most difficult way which is why Fox News, Mitch McConnel, John Boehner, and Oregon's own Republican flack Rep. Greg Walden are so focused on it. If they put "charitable contributions" in the mix, they get churches to bring pressure on the Democrats. Medicare gets seniors riled, mortgage deductions gets every Realtor in the country on the phone.
Walden, recently elevated in the House for lockstep advocacy of the rights of corporations over the rights of consumers said on Nov. 20: "Part of the way to (avoid the fiscal cliff) is by reforming our tax code to close loopholes, lower rates, and spur economic growth." Lower rates and close loopholes. Yeah, okay, Mr. Walden, that should only take about what, 4 years or so if you had your way? It's time you took that plush job ATT has waiting for you.
But wait a minute. What about the ideas of Warren Buffet, one of the country's most savvy investors and one of the wealthiest men in America. What does he have to say?
On November 25 in the New York Times, Buffet wrote that there is another way. Read it here. After explaining how the rich—like himself—have accumulated more wealth and paid less taxes than at any time in generations, Buffet advocates a minimum tax for the wealthy.
He said it so well that I quote him here:
"Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy."
Othere things need to be done, Buffet says, but "We can’t let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything."
So, before we let Republicans like Oregon's Rep. Greg Walden attempt to make tax reform too difficult, or drive us off the fiscal cliff so they can then blame Obama, or take away contributions to churches (after all, they just help the poor, so who cares?), we need to look at other alternatives.
Warren Buffet is one of the smartest investors the world has ever seen. And he invests in America instead of putting his money in banks in the Cayman Islands, like some in the Republican Party. I think we need to listen to what he says.
Labels:
corrupt Greg Walden,
Fox News,
Liar Greg Walden,
loopholes,
tax reform,
taxes,
Warren Buffet
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Romney doesn't know taxation
Mitt Romney may know how to advise the Marriott Hotel Chain how to avoid taxes, and he certainly knows how to avoid them himself.
But he doesn't know much about the tax code faced by most Americans.
In saying that 47% of us don't pay income taxes and that we expect a handout and won't support him, Romney mischaracterizes statistics. Of that 47% a majority of 28% pay a payroll tax. Much of the remainder is made up of retired people.
Actually, Romney has far more support than he should have among those who don't pay income tax. Those who pay payroll tax should realize that a portion of what they pay has gone into the general fund to reduce the taxes for the rich. Retirees should know that Romney wants to cut the very social services they need most.
Mitt Romney may not be as smart as his Stanford/Harvard education led us to believe. Or he has been so insulated by his Mormon religion and inherited wealth that he has not had to learn much about the world of working men and women.
Actually, given the man's disastrous foreign tour, his misperceptions about workers, hiding his tax returns (what IS he hiding in those tax returns?), and his lack of specifics about how he would govern, may he just doesn't know how the world works.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
From a "mobster" in Oregon
The other day Eric Cantor, Republican Majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, accused me and many others of being part of a "mob."
“I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country,” Cantor said. (Read it here).
The same day Cantor was saying that, I was on Wall Street in the middle of a noisy, orderly demonstration. The people around me were claiming to be part of the 99%, that the top 1% should pay more taxes. I was talking with an out-of-work logger and a member of the Tea Party. It was surprising how much we had in common.
Oh, did I mention "my" protest happened on Wall Street in Bend, Oregon?
In Washington, Rep. Cantor, in an effort to pit Americans against Americans, said "Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans.”
What a perfect example of double speak. Wall Street (New York) banks pillaged retirement accounts and burned the jobs of those of us on Main Street through reckless and illegal acts; politicians bought-and-paid-for by those banks and others cut taxes for the rich and made profiteering easy for giant corporations through special interest legislation. Cantor should not be talking about "pitting Americans against Americans." He's been there and done that.
Just the opposite is true among the "mobs" toward which he would whip up a fear response. Americans are coming together in recognition that business as usual is a power grab, and men like Cantor are the grasping fingers.
The top brass of Goldman Sachs should be sent to prison. There should be true competition in the market place for pharmaceuticals. There needs to be true campaign finance reform that can't be overturned by three conservatives and two weasels on the Supreme Court. To say this is not divisive. To do so is to be an American.
That is what was amazing about the "mob" gathered in Bend, Oregon on the first Friday of October. The logger, the Tea Party activist and the Liberal all agreed on many of these things. Americans are being united, not divided, by being part of this "mob."
Heads up, Mr. Cantor.
“I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country,” Cantor said. (Read it here).
The same day Cantor was saying that, I was on Wall Street in the middle of a noisy, orderly demonstration. The people around me were claiming to be part of the 99%, that the top 1% should pay more taxes. I was talking with an out-of-work logger and a member of the Tea Party. It was surprising how much we had in common.
Oh, did I mention "my" protest happened on Wall Street in Bend, Oregon?
In Washington, Rep. Cantor, in an effort to pit Americans against Americans, said "Believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans.”
What a perfect example of double speak. Wall Street (New York) banks pillaged retirement accounts and burned the jobs of those of us on Main Street through reckless and illegal acts; politicians bought-and-paid-for by those banks and others cut taxes for the rich and made profiteering easy for giant corporations through special interest legislation. Cantor should not be talking about "pitting Americans against Americans." He's been there and done that.
Just the opposite is true among the "mobs" toward which he would whip up a fear response. Americans are coming together in recognition that business as usual is a power grab, and men like Cantor are the grasping fingers.
The top brass of Goldman Sachs should be sent to prison. There should be true competition in the market place for pharmaceuticals. There needs to be true campaign finance reform that can't be overturned by three conservatives and two weasels on the Supreme Court. To say this is not divisive. To do so is to be an American.
That is what was amazing about the "mob" gathered in Bend, Oregon on the first Friday of October. The logger, the Tea Party activist and the Liberal all agreed on many of these things. Americans are being united, not divided, by being part of this "mob."
Heads up, Mr. Cantor.
Labels:
1%,
99%,
Cantor,
Goldman Sachs,
taxes,
Wall Street protests
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Don't waste money on state police
Democrats in Oregon want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on the Oregon State Police. And they want make the funding an entitlement, so if money needs to be saved in the future, OSP will not have to share.
The budget is scheduled for a work session on Monday, May 14 at 3:00 pm at the Oregon State Capitol.
Folks, the OSP gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year. How many more highway patrols to you want? What about schools? What about roads? What about investment? What in the hell are you getting for your money?
Will someone please give us some facts here?
Let's talk first about response times and support for other police: Response times have been improved by the increase in the number of cell phones far more than the number of troopers.
Then we need to ask, what is the cost per officer of an OSP Trooper versus a Clackamas County Sheriff if each is a five-year veteran? What is the "efficiency" of those officers, that is, what is the "Total cost per trooper" versus the "total cost per deputy?" or better yet, "total cost per trooper per mile on the road" versus "total cost per deputy per mile on the road?"
Is it possible we might get three deputies for the cost of two troopers? What does that mean for response times?
Let's move on to support for other agencies: do OSP and Clackamas County work as well together as Clackamas and Multnomah Counties on a true mutual aid call? Ask a couple of deputies, and promise them absolute anonymity. Ask them how they like working with the other sheriff's office, and ask them about working with OSP. There are culture differences between all of them: Bernie's agency may be hard to work with, etc. But it's a good question to put out there.
It has been said that a proposed 139 additional troopers alone will cost $17.6 million of new money initially, growing larger every two years, at least $80 million of new money in the next decade for just the increase. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET FOR THAT MONEY? You will not get $80 million of lives saved, or $80 million of meth busts, or $80 million of anything that has a positive impact on the lives of Oregonians.
The emphasis so far has been on 24 hour patrols, and more cops on the road. On that subject, see if you can find any statistics, anywhere, that shows that issuing tickets causes a population to drive more slowly, or saves any lives.
OSP sells budget increases with a misuse of numbers: In an accident, force at impact increases by the square of speed increase, (true) therefore, issuing tickets saves lives (false). Invalid because (1) Few accidents are caused by speed in a way that more troopers would prevent; (2) We don't really want traffic to move more slowly, we want it to move more safely, and they are not the same; (3) Things that are true in the singular (one driver) often fail in the aggregate (traffic safety).
Over the same period the number of troopers has been going down, the number of fatal accidents per mile driven has been going down. Ask again: What are we getting for our $17.6 million of new money that will directly benefit Oregonians?
We could put that money into schools, teaching boys and girls how to pound nails, how to weld, how to earn a living; We could create a state service program for all 18 years olds; We could put that money into a bypass around Sisters, Oregon; We could put that money into investments in alternative energy, growing soybeans for diesel fuel, turning logging slash or underbrush clearing into ethanol; We could attract a business with jobs to Newport or Coos Bay; We could improve a bridge. Widen a road. Reform K-8 education by teaching parents how to parent.
There is so much to do with that money, my god don’t throw it away on the OSP.
Time is short. Write your legislator. Find the address on the right side of this article.
The budget is scheduled for a work session on Monday, May 14 at 3:00 pm at the Oregon State Capitol.
Folks, the OSP gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year. How many more highway patrols to you want? What about schools? What about roads? What about investment? What in the hell are you getting for your money?
Will someone please give us some facts here?
Let's talk first about response times and support for other police: Response times have been improved by the increase in the number of cell phones far more than the number of troopers.
Then we need to ask, what is the cost per officer of an OSP Trooper versus a Clackamas County Sheriff if each is a five-year veteran? What is the "efficiency" of those officers, that is, what is the "Total cost per trooper" versus the "total cost per deputy?" or better yet, "total cost per trooper per mile on the road" versus "total cost per deputy per mile on the road?"
Is it possible we might get three deputies for the cost of two troopers? What does that mean for response times?
Let's move on to support for other agencies: do OSP and Clackamas County work as well together as Clackamas and Multnomah Counties on a true mutual aid call? Ask a couple of deputies, and promise them absolute anonymity. Ask them how they like working with the other sheriff's office, and ask them about working with OSP. There are culture differences between all of them: Bernie's agency may be hard to work with, etc. But it's a good question to put out there.
It has been said that a proposed 139 additional troopers alone will cost $17.6 million of new money initially, growing larger every two years, at least $80 million of new money in the next decade for just the increase. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET FOR THAT MONEY? You will not get $80 million of lives saved, or $80 million of meth busts, or $80 million of anything that has a positive impact on the lives of Oregonians.
The emphasis so far has been on 24 hour patrols, and more cops on the road. On that subject, see if you can find any statistics, anywhere, that shows that issuing tickets causes a population to drive more slowly, or saves any lives.
OSP sells budget increases with a misuse of numbers: In an accident, force at impact increases by the square of speed increase, (true) therefore, issuing tickets saves lives (false). Invalid because (1) Few accidents are caused by speed in a way that more troopers would prevent; (2) We don't really want traffic to move more slowly, we want it to move more safely, and they are not the same; (3) Things that are true in the singular (one driver) often fail in the aggregate (traffic safety).
Over the same period the number of troopers has been going down, the number of fatal accidents per mile driven has been going down. Ask again: What are we getting for our $17.6 million of new money that will directly benefit Oregonians?
We could put that money into schools, teaching boys and girls how to pound nails, how to weld, how to earn a living; We could create a state service program for all 18 years olds; We could put that money into a bypass around Sisters, Oregon; We could put that money into investments in alternative energy, growing soybeans for diesel fuel, turning logging slash or underbrush clearing into ethanol; We could attract a business with jobs to Newport or Coos Bay; We could improve a bridge. Widen a road. Reform K-8 education by teaching parents how to parent.
There is so much to do with that money, my god don’t throw it away on the OSP.
Time is short. Write your legislator. Find the address on the right side of this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)