In the August 8th issue of C & E News, there is an article entitled, "Science and the Debt Deal" by three C&E News reporters.
They indicate that the raising of the federal ceiling by Pres. Obama included a deal to reduce $900 billion in federal discretionary funds over the next 10 years. $90 billion per year in budget cuts is not significant compared to a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.
Even so, none of the projected $90 billion annual cut in spending will occur immediately.
Since that annual cut is insignificant with respect to the total problem, Congress should quit quibbling with that and get on with the major project of eliminating whole agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Congress Must Reduce Funding to Agencies Doling out Research Grants
C&E News has in their July 25 issue an article entitled, "Aiding Innovation in Tough Fiscal Times". At a forum in June, researchers said, "The US is losing its competitive edge as a result of lack of funding for innovation by both government and private investors." If you were a researcher receiving a government handout as a grant, wouldn't you be tempted to say the same thing, especially since the Republican House is looking for ways to reduce expenditures?
Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of health (NIH) said that NIH used to fund roughly one of every three grant proposals that it received, but with budget constraints it will fund only one of every six proposals. This doesn't really tell us anything, because with more public knowledge of the existence of the gravy train, there may be many more proposals than previous. But if he is right in his prognosis of reduced expenditures, Hooray!
Angela Belcher, a professor at MIT and an entrepreneur said venture capitalists were very helpful in the early stages of her career. That's fine, but not an excuse for government involvement. Private venture capitalists are investing their own money and look very critically at the possibilities of return. Government agency investors are investing taxpayer money and are bound to have less consideration for risk.
Collins also said that it is critical that the US cultivate its own scientists. No argument here. However, government does not make scientists. Scientists are developed through natural curiosity and talent followed by education, usually in colleges and universities. There's no question that government grants will aid scientists in further scientific developments, but in most cases young scientists have no concept of what is necessary for the real world. They are guided mostly by curiosity, wherein their impractical projects do not justify taxpayer funding. Government agencies are not in a position to make those determinations. Private companies and venture capitalists are.
Congress must reduce the budgets of these various federal agencies that have been doling out taxpayer funds for ridiculous projects. We never could afford it, but it has now become a critical issue.
Francis Collins, Director of the National Institute of health (NIH) said that NIH used to fund roughly one of every three grant proposals that it received, but with budget constraints it will fund only one of every six proposals. This doesn't really tell us anything, because with more public knowledge of the existence of the gravy train, there may be many more proposals than previous. But if he is right in his prognosis of reduced expenditures, Hooray!
Angela Belcher, a professor at MIT and an entrepreneur said venture capitalists were very helpful in the early stages of her career. That's fine, but not an excuse for government involvement. Private venture capitalists are investing their own money and look very critically at the possibilities of return. Government agency investors are investing taxpayer money and are bound to have less consideration for risk.
Collins also said that it is critical that the US cultivate its own scientists. No argument here. However, government does not make scientists. Scientists are developed through natural curiosity and talent followed by education, usually in colleges and universities. There's no question that government grants will aid scientists in further scientific developments, but in most cases young scientists have no concept of what is necessary for the real world. They are guided mostly by curiosity, wherein their impractical projects do not justify taxpayer funding. Government agencies are not in a position to make those determinations. Private companies and venture capitalists are.
Congress must reduce the budgets of these various federal agencies that have been doling out taxpayer funds for ridiculous projects. We never could afford it, but it has now become a critical issue.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Obama Deceit on Tax Rates for the Rich
Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
Randy,
How can we get this out as "news"?
Obama says that Warren Buffet's secretary is paying taxes at a higher rate than Buffet's secretary. Untrue! He's comparing apples with oranges and even then he is wrong. He is trying to promote economic class warfare to foster his Marxist program.
Let's look at the facts. Buffet is a "rich" person. His secretary is middle economic class. Buffet is "rich", because he has capital. To make money, he has to risk his capital, which means that if he makes mistakes, he can lose what he has. His secretary makes money by her efforts as a secretary. She does not risk any money she already has.
Buffet owns a corporation. If that corporation makes a profit, it would pay the corporate income tax rate of 39%. But let's say the corporate accountants find the loopholes and the corporation ends up paying only 20%. That comes out of Buffet's pocket. When Buffets files his personal income tax, he pays 15% on the money he receives from the corporation, after it has paid its' taxes. Add that to the 20% tax his corporation already paid and his total rate is 35%.
Let's say Buffet's secretary has a salary of $100,000. With various exemptions and deductions, such as mortgage interest, church, charity , other taxes, etc, his/her taxable income might be $70,000. Assume he/she is single. The tax then calculates to $13,625, which is 13.6% of his/her salary.
In summary, Buffet pays 35% on "apples" and his secretary pays 14% on "oranges". Buffet risks the money he has. His secretary does not. They both live in approximately the same life style. Buffet is only considered "rich", because he has control of assets and could change his lifestyle if he wished. He has the economic freedom to do so, but he prefers to live in a modest house and drive an old car.He also has the responsibilty of keeping his secretary employed, so that he/she can continue to collect $100,000 per year. For how many other countless individuals is he also economically responsible, in how he runs his corporation?
Randy,
How can we get this out as "news"?
Obama says that Warren Buffet's secretary is paying taxes at a higher rate than Buffet's secretary. Untrue! He's comparing apples with oranges and even then he is wrong. He is trying to promote economic class warfare to foster his Marxist program.
Let's look at the facts. Buffet is a "rich" person. His secretary is middle economic class. Buffet is "rich", because he has capital. To make money, he has to risk his capital, which means that if he makes mistakes, he can lose what he has. His secretary makes money by her efforts as a secretary. She does not risk any money she already has.
Buffet owns a corporation. If that corporation makes a profit, it would pay the corporate income tax rate of 39%. But let's say the corporate accountants find the loopholes and the corporation ends up paying only 20%. That comes out of Buffet's pocket. When Buffets files his personal income tax, he pays 15% on the money he receives from the corporation, after it has paid its' taxes. Add that to the 20% tax his corporation already paid and his total rate is 35%.
Let's say Buffet's secretary has a salary of $100,000. With various exemptions and deductions, such as mortgage interest, church, charity , other taxes, etc, his/her taxable income might be $70,000. Assume he/she is single. The tax then calculates to $13,625, which is 13.6% of his/her salary.
In summary, Buffet pays 35% on "apples" and his secretary pays 14% on "oranges". Buffet risks the money he has. His secretary does not. They both live in approximately the same life style. Buffet is only considered "rich", because he has control of assets and could change his lifestyle if he wished. He has the economic freedom to do so, but he prefers to live in a modest house and drive an old car.He also has the responsibilty of keeping his secretary employed, so that he/she can continue to collect $100,000 per year. For how many other countless individuals is he also economically responsible, in how he runs his corporation?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Eliminate the Doling Out Of Taxpayer Funds by Federal Agencies to "Researchers"
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.
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.
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
