Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
The August 15th issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Revisiting Grant Reviews". According to the article, the House Science Space and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education last month reviewed the grant process. The grant process is a procedure whereby various agencies of the federal government dole out money to various private investigators, usually at universities, to fund projects, which the government agencies judge are significant.
I have said many times that the judgment of these agencies is very questionable. Such projects is why a butterfly beats its wings and how far a frog can jump, are not worthwhile projects for spending taxpayer money.
I have also said many times that the whole grant process involving taxpayer funds should be scuttled. We are now in tremendous debt, looking for various ways to reduce expenses, and this is one obvious way.
I am not opposed to science research. I am opposed to impractical science research. Projects such as how to better protect citizens from car bombs and other explosive devices or how to improve food production. are worthwhile endeavors. However, it does not take government to be involved in these things. We have private industries and industry groups whose job it is to do this. The function of government in this area is only to maintain a level playing field, such that none of these companies or organizations are tempted to collaborate to the disadvantage of the American public. Even as I say that, I am not particularly concerned, when I make a comparison of the damage already done by federal regulatory agencies and the squandering of money on taxpayer supported grants.
Randy, I say again, get rid of government grants. I notice that the subcommittee is asking for suggestions on how to make the merit review process of grant issuance more efficient. This disturbs me, because it implies that the subcommittee wants to maintain this economy destroying mechanism. Is it because the subcommittee members feel that they need to justify their jobs? I hope not. Given the opportunity to just draw their salaries and do nothing, versus drawing salaries and doing damage, I much prefer the former.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Eliminate US Corporate Tax Loopholes and Reduce the Rate
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Worldwide corporate tax rates are a significant factor in determining where a company locates to do business. A 1% difference in tax rates means that there is that much more to pay to the business owners, as opposed to payment to government.
Here are some country groups, with their corporate rates:
39% - US and Japan
34% - France
30% - Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, and Spain
28% - Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, UK
26% - Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden
Some say that the 39% US corporate tax rate is not really that high, because of various exemptions. However, the fact is that when corporations are looking for a place to do business, they want to have some specific figures, not a supposition that they may qualify for certain benefits.
Let's get the tax code revised to eliminate loopholes and reduced to a reasonable level, say 26%, to give potential businesses a financial reason to come to the US. We need jobs, jobs, jobs!
Randy,
Worldwide corporate tax rates are a significant factor in determining where a company locates to do business. A 1% difference in tax rates means that there is that much more to pay to the business owners, as opposed to payment to government.
Here are some country groups, with their corporate rates:
39% - US and Japan
34% - France
30% - Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, and Spain
28% - Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, UK
26% - Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden
Some say that the 39% US corporate tax rate is not really that high, because of various exemptions. However, the fact is that when corporations are looking for a place to do business, they want to have some specific figures, not a supposition that they may qualify for certain benefits.
Let's get the tax code revised to eliminate loopholes and reduced to a reasonable level, say 26%, to give potential businesses a financial reason to come to the US. We need jobs, jobs, jobs!
Why Is BASF Investing in Brazil and Not in the US?
The August issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "BASF to Invest Big in Brazil". BASF is a huge German chemical company.
This is a relatively short article. It indicates the BASF will spend $720 million to build a world scale complex producing various acrylates for super absorbent. One retail example for super absorbent is in pads to handle incontinence.
The main question is why would BASF be investing in Brazil rather than in the US? The article doesn't say, but it might be worthwhile to speculate.
Brazil has found a large deposit of petroleum off its Atlantic Coast. In fact, Pres. Obama made a political faux pas by congratulating Brazil and indicating that we would be one of its best oil customers. While Brazil can be a good retail market, it is small compared to the US. Therefore, marketing consideration likely a significant factor in BASF's decision. More likely, they have looked at tax benefits and general favorable Brazilian government attitudes toward regulation as compared to those in the United States.
If this is true, it is another example of why we have in the USA a declining economy with related high unemployment. It would seem advisable for some of the state agencies, such as Texas, to ask BASF why they chose Brazil for their expansion, rather than taking advantage of the huge chemical complex already established in the Houston area.
This is a relatively short article. It indicates the BASF will spend $720 million to build a world scale complex producing various acrylates for super absorbent. One retail example for super absorbent is in pads to handle incontinence.
The main question is why would BASF be investing in Brazil rather than in the US? The article doesn't say, but it might be worthwhile to speculate.
Brazil has found a large deposit of petroleum off its Atlantic Coast. In fact, Pres. Obama made a political faux pas by congratulating Brazil and indicating that we would be one of its best oil customers. While Brazil can be a good retail market, it is small compared to the US. Therefore, marketing consideration likely a significant factor in BASF's decision. More likely, they have looked at tax benefits and general favorable Brazilian government attitudes toward regulation as compared to those in the United States.
If this is true, it is another example of why we have in the USA a declining economy with related high unemployment. It would seem advisable for some of the state agencies, such as Texas, to ask BASF why they chose Brazil for their expansion, rather than taking advantage of the huge chemical complex already established in the Houston area.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Taxing the Rich Explained in Beer Terms
Randy,
You may have seen this before, but one of my associates says it's time for a rerun.
Taxation Explained to the Masses.
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :-
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay$1.
The sixth would pay$3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay$12.
The ninth would pay$18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do....... The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20".
Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the$20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts. He suggested that each should now pay:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid$9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the$20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
"Everyone crosses the finish line, winners just
find a better way to get there!"
You may have seen this before, but one of my associates says it's time for a rerun.
Taxation Explained to the Masses.
Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this :-
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay$1.
The sixth would pay$3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay$12.
The ninth would pay$18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do....... The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20".
Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the$20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts. He suggested that each should now pay:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid$9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the$20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, labour unions and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
"Everyone crosses the finish line, winners just
find a better way to get there!"
Pres. Proposes $237,000 to Make One New Job
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
Here is another unsolicited opinion from one of my associates.
ACS
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Obama's speech
Regarding the President’s speech on Thursday evening:
Hmmmm. Let’s see. $450 billion to create 1.9 million jobs (according to economist Mark Zandi who was asked by the White House to evaluate the President’s proposal) = $236,842 per job. Not a very good deal. Instead, why not just give the money directly to businesses to be spent entirely and directly on jobs. (And we know that most businesses are much more accountable and trustworthy than our government and politicians.) If businesses spent $32,142 per job created for one year, that would create 14 million jobs (a job for every person who is currently unemployed). We could stipulate that the $32,142 per job created be spent entirely on employee wages (the employer would need to cover the indirect costs of employment).
So for $450 billion we could create 14 million new jobs for one year @ a salary of $32,000 per job. The White House is proposing spending 450 billion to create 1.9 million jobs. No wonder our trust of the government and the White house is so low!
Oh, and one other little detail. How can we spend $450 billion dollars that we don't have, when we are already umpteen trillion dollars in debt with no way to repay it?
Randy,
Here is another unsolicited opinion from one of my associates.
ACS
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Obama's speech
Regarding the President’s speech on Thursday evening:
Hmmmm. Let’s see. $450 billion to create 1.9 million jobs (according to economist Mark Zandi who was asked by the White House to evaluate the President’s proposal) = $236,842 per job. Not a very good deal. Instead, why not just give the money directly to businesses to be spent entirely and directly on jobs. (And we know that most businesses are much more accountable and trustworthy than our government and politicians.) If businesses spent $32,142 per job created for one year, that would create 14 million jobs (a job for every person who is currently unemployed). We could stipulate that the $32,142 per job created be spent entirely on employee wages (the employer would need to cover the indirect costs of employment).
So for $450 billion we could create 14 million new jobs for one year @ a salary of $32,000 per job. The White House is proposing spending 450 billion to create 1.9 million jobs. No wonder our trust of the government and the White house is so low!
Oh, and one other little detail. How can we spend $450 billion dollars that we don't have, when we are already umpteen trillion dollars in debt with no way to repay it?
Sideshow Procedures in the Next Stimulus Bill
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
You and I heard the President's speech last night. I would like to make a few comments to put it into perspective.
He wants $500 billion for another stimulus program, which he does not want to call "stimulus". He specified a number of items on which this $500 billion would be spent, and with which we mostly have no argument. Essentially. It sounds good.
The "catch" lies in his repeated statement that he wants the bill passed now, now, now. Notice that the "now" is before he explains where he is going to obtain the $500 billion. He promises that will come up in two weeks, after you pass the bill.
Why would he do this? The answer is in a deceptive sales approach. In the first part you only talk about the icing on the cake. After you have bought the cake, you find out that the base is manure.
Pres. Obama is a tremendous speaker. He has wonderful experience from his early work in community organizing. He is so good that the average person will continue to believe him, even though he has time and again shown that his statements are not to be depended upon. We will not say that he's a liar, but we sure can say that he is a super rationalizer.
When I was a boy, we had Side Shows at Coney Island. One that I remember was a bull with human skin. The barker on the outside extolled the virtues of this wonderful animal and the difficulty they had in obtaining it. If you were dumb enough to even once pay your quarter to get to the inside, you found that it was a bull from which they had shaved all the hair.
Are you going to pay your "quarter" again to see in two weeks what wonderful things Pres. Obama has on the inside?
They say that a sucker is born every minute, which means that after some minutes there must be many suckers. I hope the suckers do not comprise the majority of our Congress.
Randy,
You and I heard the President's speech last night. I would like to make a few comments to put it into perspective.
He wants $500 billion for another stimulus program, which he does not want to call "stimulus". He specified a number of items on which this $500 billion would be spent, and with which we mostly have no argument. Essentially. It sounds good.
The "catch" lies in his repeated statement that he wants the bill passed now, now, now. Notice that the "now" is before he explains where he is going to obtain the $500 billion. He promises that will come up in two weeks, after you pass the bill.
Why would he do this? The answer is in a deceptive sales approach. In the first part you only talk about the icing on the cake. After you have bought the cake, you find out that the base is manure.
Pres. Obama is a tremendous speaker. He has wonderful experience from his early work in community organizing. He is so good that the average person will continue to believe him, even though he has time and again shown that his statements are not to be depended upon. We will not say that he's a liar, but we sure can say that he is a super rationalizer.
When I was a boy, we had Side Shows at Coney Island. One that I remember was a bull with human skin. The barker on the outside extolled the virtues of this wonderful animal and the difficulty they had in obtaining it. If you were dumb enough to even once pay your quarter to get to the inside, you found that it was a bull from which they had shaved all the hair.
Are you going to pay your "quarter" again to see in two weeks what wonderful things Pres. Obama has on the inside?
They say that a sucker is born every minute, which means that after some minutes there must be many suckers. I hope the suckers do not comprise the majority of our Congress.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Putin Pressing for Economic Control of Western Europe
EIN News says, "Putin Launches New Gas Link to Western Europe Russia put the first natural gas into the undersea Nord Stream pipeline to Western Europe at a ceremony attended by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, an AFP correspondent reported. (france24.com)".
Following World War II, the Soviet Union attempted to control Europe with military might. It was partially successful, through temporary control of Eastern Europe. If had no control over Western Europe.
Ronald Reagan forced the Soviet Union into military escalation, which eventually caused its fall through bankruptcy. That forced the military release of the Soviets from Eastern Europe.
Vladimir Putin has a new strategy. He's now starting control of Western Europe through supplies of natural gas, which are sorely needed by Western Europeans, because of their lack of petroleum resources.
Putin is on the right track. He recognizes that the demise of the Soviet Union was caused by an economic collapse. The Obama Administration and the United States Congress do not seem to understand this as a potential for US demise.
If the US continues on its present economic course, within five years it will be replaced by China and Russia as the leading controllers of world economy.
Following World War II, the Soviet Union attempted to control Europe with military might. It was partially successful, through temporary control of Eastern Europe. If had no control over Western Europe.
Ronald Reagan forced the Soviet Union into military escalation, which eventually caused its fall through bankruptcy. That forced the military release of the Soviets from Eastern Europe.
Vladimir Putin has a new strategy. He's now starting control of Western Europe through supplies of natural gas, which are sorely needed by Western Europeans, because of their lack of petroleum resources.
Putin is on the right track. He recognizes that the demise of the Soviet Union was caused by an economic collapse. The Obama Administration and the United States Congress do not seem to understand this as a potential for US demise.
If the US continues on its present economic course, within five years it will be replaced by China and Russia as the leading controllers of world economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
