Tag Archives: politics

Remembering The Pulse Massacre

Leave a reply

Remembering The Pulse massacre  

Today marks 9th anniversary of the most murderous act of hatred in the history of this country. In the early morning hours of June 12, 2015, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American born Muslim, shot and killed 49 people and injured another 53 at The Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. 

As I scan the newspapers today, I don’t see any mention of this. Why not? If a white supremacist had gone into a black church and killed 49 people and wounded 53 more, there would be Memorial services all over the country, and politicians of both parties  would be gravely warning us of the moral imperative for America to stamp out bigotry, racism, etc., etc., ad nauseum.  

The reason The Pulse nightclub massacre is not being commemorated reflects the moral hierarchy of both victim and victimizer in woke America, as well as rank hypocrisy. Black victims and a white shooter, we’d be hearing a lot about it. So, too, if the gays had been shot by a straight, white Christian. Considering June is “Pride Month,” we can be sure that straight white Christians would be demonized.  

As it was, the shooter was a Muslim, and Muslims killing white gays will not be remembered in the press or from the pulpit, because Muslims, along with gays, are oppressed victims in America, and in fact are even MORE oppressed. Just a mentally disturbed individual who happened to be a Muslim. Move along folks, nothing to see here. 

This, despite Mateen declaring himself a devout Muslim on a 911 call while he was doing the shooting: “Praise be to God and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God.” On his Facebook page, he pledged allegiance to the leader of the then nascent state of ISIS, and wrote, “may Allah accept me.”    

Over the next two days ISIS declared Mateen an “Islamic State fighter” and “one of the soldiers of the Caliphate in America” who had “attacked a nightclub for homosexuals.” In this, he was only obeying Muhammad: “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.” (Reliance of the Traveller(sic), A Classic Manuel of Islamic Sacred Law, page 665.) 

I’m reminded of all this because less than two weeks ago in Boulder, CO, Muhamed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian-born Muslim, threw Molotov cocktails at a group of elderly Jews who were marching to free hostages held by Hamas, injuring 15. Soliman, like Mateen, left no doubt about his motivation, telling his family: “I attest before Allah and before you that Allah, His Messenger, and Jihad for Alice’s sake are more beloved to me than you and the whole world are.”     

Soliman, 45, had attempted to buy a gun but couldn’t because he is not a citizen. The background check worked and probably saved a lot of lives.  Soliman has lived in America since 2022 with his wife and five children, who now face deportation as their visas expired on March 28.  

There was nothing about Soliman’s behavior that suggested that he might be a threat to anybody, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT HE IS A MUSLIM. Right on cue, the Boulder police chief said, “We are not calling it a terror attack at this point. It is way too early to speculate on a motive.”  

What is there to speculate about when the attacker has made his motive perfectly clear?  I have wondered for many years when we’re going to start believing the Muslims. I’ve come to the conclusion that we never will, and that the only option for people who feel threatened by Muslims is to protect themselves.   

This is especially true for American Jews, most of whom, unfortunately, live in New York state, where it is extremely difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed gun. There are 26 states in which a concealed carry permit is not required for law abiding citizens, but New York is not one of them. (Nor is New Mexico.) 

To circumvent this, I would suggest to President Trump that he issue an Executive Order authorizing the FBI to grant concealed carry permits. This would bypass state laws that essentially make self-defense illegal. Self-defense should not be something law-abiding citizens forfeit to criminals, ever.   

Sadly. I’m afraid many liberal Jews would oppose this.     

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will use them

Leave a reply

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will use them by Peter Burrows 4/30/25 elburropete@gmail.com 

On August 8, 2006, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Bernard Lewis, a British American historian who was regarded as one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. In that article, published almost 19 years ago, Lewis pointed out the dangers inherit in Iran having nuclear weapons. 

Namely, while other nations are deterred from using nuclear weapons because of the threat of nuclear retaliation, known as the MAD doctrine, mutually assured destruction, this is NOT a deterrence for Iran.  In fact, given Iran’s Islamic dogma, “MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.”  (Emphasis in original.) (1)  

This is as true today as it was then, and the fact that so many Western leaders still think it is possible to negotiate a lasting peace with Iran shows how little we’ve learned. The results could be catastrophic.  

One of the rules of warfare, emphasized 2500 years ago by Sun Tzu in The Art of War, is to know your enemy. I don’t know of any Western leader who has said anything that indicates they know our enemy. This is what they should know: 

Our enemies in Iran are Shia Muslims who believe that the twelfth and last Shia Imam was 5-year-old Muhammad al-Mahdi, a direct descendent of Muhammad, who was rescued from Sunni persecution by Allah in 854 A.D. The still living Mahdi, now 1,160 years old, has been in a state of occultation waiting for Allah to send him back to lead the Shias in their conquest of the world.   

Sometimes called the Hidden Imam, his followers are known as Mahdaviats or Twelvers. Millions of them have made a pilgrimage to a well at the Jamkaran Mosque near the city of Qom, where it is believed Allah hid him.  

The sad truth is that the little boy was probably kidnapped and murdered by the Sunnis as part of the nascent Sunni-Shia struggle for dominance, and perhaps his remains were thrown down that well. We’ll never know. The Shias and Sunnis have been fighting each other ever since, something non-Muslims can be thankful for. 

The Shias are only about 15 percent of all Muslims in the world but virtually 100% of the Muslims in Iran, of which about 90% would be considered Mahdaviats. Whatever theological differences might exist between Sunnis and Shias or between different sects of Shias, is irrelevant considering it’s the Mahdaviats who could have their finger on the nuclear trigger.  

That is why it is so important that we know that the Mahdaviates believe the return of the Twelfth Imam will occur in a time of great chaos, and if they can initiate that chaos, they will be simply hastening the day of Shia rule and world salvation. What better way to be proactive in such a holy cause than to use nuclear weapons against the unbelievers, starting with Israel? 

It is immaterial if this results in the death of the Iranians because they will be in Paradise, their promised reward for dying in the cause of Allah, something true for all Muslims, not just Shias. From the Quran, Mawdudi translation: 

Verse 9:38: “Believers! What is amiss with you that when it is said to you: “March forth in the cause of Allah,” you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the worldly life to the Hereafter? Know well that all the enjoyment of this world, in comparison with the Hereafter, is trivial.” 

Verse 9:111: “Surely Allah has purchased of the Believers their lives and their belongings and in return has promised that they shall have Paradise. They fight in the Way of Allah and slay and are slain. Such is the promise He has made incumbent upon Himself —. Rejoice then in the bargain you have made with Him.” (Slightly edited for brevity.) 

While those verses apply to all Muslims, the Mahdaviates believe in a specific apocalyptic event, the return of the Hidden Imam, believed by no other Islamic sect. This means they are uniquely dangerous. To that point, here’s what the founder of the Iranian Shia theocracy, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, is quoted as saying: 

“I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers (the infidel powers) wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another’s hand in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom.  In both cases, victory and success are ours.” (2) 

Let that sink in: “IN BOTH CASES, VICTORY AND SUCCESS ARE OURS.” I don’t think it’s necessary to note that in both cases, whether defeated or not, a helluva lot of death and destruction will be visited upon the non-Muslims, us infidels, by these fanatically religious Muslims. 

The Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989, but his successors have not deviated from Mahdi orthodoxy.  The current Supreme Leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who last year said that any retreat from punishing Israel for assassinating a Hamas leader when he was in Tehran would risk “divine wrath.” (3)  

Trump has been elected since then and is spouting a lot of tough talk about Iran’s nuclear program. He says it’s unacceptable for them to ever get a nuclear weapon, yet he’s negotiating with them. Why? There’s nothing to negotiate.  Is his rhetoric merely a gambit in “the art of the deal?” 

In the short run, risking Trump’s decidedly undivine wrath may be something the Ayatollah wants to avoid, but in the long run we can be sure that it’s avoiding the “Divine wrath” that matters. This means he’ll play Trump’s ego and negotiate a deal for the self-anointed world’s greatest deal maker, a deal which might even get Trump nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. All that such a deal will do, unless it has on-site monitoring and on-demand access to anyplace in Iran, is buy more time for the Iranians to continue developing nuclear weapons.   

After all, they have been waiting for almost 1,200 years for Muhammad al-Mahdi to lead the Shias to eternal victory in the cause of Allah, so a few more years or decades is of little consequence. As one Muslim famously said, “You’ve got the watches, we’ve got the time.” 

I haven’t given up hope, though. Trump just appointed Mark Levin to the Homeland Security Advisory Council, and Levin is smart, tough and Jewish. You probably know him from his TV show, “Life liberty and Levin” which airs twice a week on Fox. This past Sunday, April 27, his guest was Alan Dershowitz, another smart, tough, Jew, and they talked about the danger that a nuclear armed Iran would pose to Israel. 

They both agreed that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, that negotiating is a mistake, and that anybody advising Trump to make a deal is simply wrong. I hope Trump takes their advice.  

1) www.wsj.com/articles/SB115500154638829470  

2)  ibid  

3) www.iranintl.com/en/202408148230 

Other sources: 

www.raymondibrahim.com/2023/12/21/mahdism-the-apocalyptic-ideology-behind-irans-nuclear-program/ 

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401858/Why-man-nightmares.html 

www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/01/ahmadinejad_awaits_the_hidden.html  

en.radiofarda.com/a/ap-was-there-iran-s-1979-islamic-revolution-sweeps-nation/29765359.html 

www.breakpoint.org/preparing-for-the-mahdi/ 

Income Tax Insanity

Leave a reply

Income Tax Insanity by Peter Burrows 4/23/25  elburropete@gmail.com  

One of the worst ideas the Trump Administration has come up with is to eliminate income taxes for those making $150,000 a year or less. This might make short-term political sense, but in the long run it will make controlling the size of the government even harder than it is now. 

It would mean only 7 percent of US citizens would pay 100 percent of the income tax. The other 93 percent would pay zero percent and have no incentive to reduce government spending or oppose future tax increases. It’s bad enough now, with the bottom 93 percent paying only 24 percent of all the income tax revenue while the top one percent pays about 40 percent. That’s worth repeating: the top one percent pays 40 percent of the total. 

Ironically, when Bernie Sanders, or some other demagogue, rants about “tax cuts for the rich,” there’s some truth in that because it’s “the rich” who are paying most of the taxes, certainly more than their “fair share.    

Such demagoguery surrounding the income tax has been going on for over 100 years, almost since it was authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. At the time, less than 1% of Americans had to pay the tax. If you are thinking something along the lines of “camel-nose-tent,” me too. 

I’m also reminded of something noted almost 200 years ago by French philosopher and historian Alexis de Tocqueville: “A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.”  Voters are thus more likely to vote for tax increases because, after all. the tax doesn’t hit thee or me, only the guy behind the tree, to paraphrase an old saw.  

In the long run, Trump’s tax could motivate people with high incomes – who are not necessarily rich — to find other places to live where success isn’t penalized, or to do things to reduce their taxable income, such as buying tax-free bonds instead of “plowing another field.” 

Much depends upon the actual rate at which income is taxed. A top rate of 25-30% is probably not high enough to motivate very many people to avoid paying taxes. Currently, the top rate is 37% which kicks in for joint returns over $751,000 in income. Paradoxically, more revenue might be raised from those taxpayers if the tax rate was LOWERED from 37%.  

This is something that’s also been known for over 100 years. Here’s what Calvin Coolidge said in 1924: “The first object of taxation is to secure revenue. When the taxation of large incomes is approached with this in view, the problem is to find a rate which will produce the largest returns. Experience does not show that the higher rate produces the larger revenue —” 

President Kennedy said something similar in 1962: “It is a paradoxical truth that the tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”  President Reagan’s tax cuts were justified with the same reasoning. 

In 1974, economist Art Laffer famously sketched on a napkin a simple graph showing this trade-off between tax rates and tax revenues, which became known as the Laffer Curve. Still, almost 60 years later, the idea that you can increase tax revenues by decreasing the tax rate on high incomes doesn’t seem to have sunk in. This means that it is inevitable, with 93% of the income earners paying no income taxes, that some demagogue will campaign – and win – calling for higher tax rates on “the rich.” 

I wish Trump would have instead called for a flat tax on ALL incomes. Flat tax proposals have been around for years, but such a tax has such powerful opposition that it’s never had a realistic chance of becoming law.  With Trump as President, however, and with Trump actively supporting it, a flat tax proposal would at least get a good hearing in Congress.  

While it wouldn’t get through THIS Congress, it could start a discussion that might mean a future congress would enact a flat tax. It’s a discussion well worth having. A flat text has three very attractive features: 1) Almost all income earners would have a stake in how the government spends our money, “skin in the game,” so to speak.  2) It would dramatically simplify tax preparation: “1040 on a postcard.” 3) Such simplification would mean the IRS doesn’t have to be nearly as big as it is. 

A key feature of a flat tax is that only standard deductions are allowed for individuals: one for the filer, one for the spouse, and a standard deduction for every dependent.  No other deductions are allowed. That would mean no deductions for charitable donations, religious contributions, interest on your home mortgage, 501(c)(3)s etc. None. Nada. 

As you can imagine, a flat tax doesn’t get a lot of support from real estate agents, charities, tax preparers or anybody who’s income depends upon tax deductible contributions or a complex tax code. Those on the left will also argue that we need a progressive tax code to ensure that the rich pay their “fair share,” as if 40 percent from the top one percent isn’t enough.  

In fact, another attractive feature of a flat text is that the “fair share” lie would be easier to refute. Here’s an example of how that would work:   

Assume standard deductions for a couple filing a joint return of $10,000 each and $5,000 for each child. A couple with two children would thus have $30,000 of deductions. On an income of $40,000, they would therefore have taxable income of $10,000. If their income is doubled to $80,000, their taxable income is $50,000. Summary: 2X the income but 5X the income tax. I think that would sound “fair” to most people. 

As desirable as a flat tax may be, we’ll never get one without a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits for Congress. As it is, too many in Congress want to get re-elected above all else, and they’ll follow the dictates of the tax lawyers, the charities and all the nonprofits such as Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club Foundation, BLM, even the Metropolitan Opera, and on and on. 

I’m afraid we’re stuck with a needlessly complex and unfair income tax. I’m disappointed that Trump hasn’t done anything to fix it, but maybe President Vance will.   

Trump’s Tariff Tango: Shrewd or Stupid?

Leave a reply

Trump’s Tariff Tango: Shrewd or Stupid? By Peter Burrows —  elburropete@gmail.com 4/14/25 

I think President Trump makes a compelling case that the United States has been harmed by unilateral tariffs placed on American goods by, apparently, nearly every country in the world.  I had no idea such tariffs were so ubiquitous and had been in effect for so long, and in some cases, had been so damned high.  

His retaliatory tariff policy, while causing great consternation around the world, appears to be having the desired effect as many countries are now offering to lower or eliminate their tariffs if we’ll do the same.  Trump’s “shock and awe” tactics may be well thought out or spur-of-the-moment. Probably both. 

With Trump you never know.  He can turn on a dime and claim that’s what he intended to do all along — and say it with a straight face.  That causes heads to explode, which is fun to watch, and while he seems to be enjoying himself now, that will come to an end when he finds out just how much we depend upon China for everyday goods.  He’s already removed his tariffs on smartphones and PCs from China, which supplies 75 percent of US demand. 

If Trump’s Chinese tariffs are intended to make us less reliant on China as a matter of national security, such tariffs make sense. In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any tariffs anywhere, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Tariffs to protect vital industries are necessary if those vital Industries are under partial or near total control of an adversary country, which China certainly is.  

However, that fact, plus the fact that China is much more dependent upon selling things to us than we are on buying things from them, may not be important to the Democrats, who will be delighted to blame Trump when shelves start to empty and prices at Walmart and Amazon start going through the roof. 

Other than national security, the other reasons Trump touts for tariffs don’t make sense.  He has said, for example, that tariffs make nations rich. Nonsense. If nations with tariffs get rich, it’s despite tariffs, not because of them. The industries and workers protected by the tariffs may get rich, but they do so because in the absence of foreign competition they can overcharge their customers. Whenever government, industry and labor get together on something like tariffs, it’s a guarantee that consumers are going to get screwed.  

Another ridiculous idea Trump touts is that tariffs are a good source of revenue and will allow the Republicans to cut income tax cuts. Well, maybe so, but there will be no decrease in total taxation because all that would do is substitute a sales tax, which is what tariffs are IF THEY ARE PAID, for the income tax.  Trump’s notion that tariffs can replace the income tax shows he doesn’t realize tariffs are essentially a sales tax.  

Ask yourself this question: If tariffs raise the price of imported products so high that nobody buys them, how much money do the tariffs raise? If you said “zero,” go to the head of the class. 

A tacit assumption about tariffs is that they are paid by the foreign companies. More nonsense. Those companies collect the tariffs from their U.S. customers and then remit the proceeds to the government. It’s analogous to corporate income taxes. Corporations don’t pay income taxes, their customers do.  

Unlike the sales tax, corporate income taxes are incorporated into the price of the product before the customer gets to the cash register. At the cash register, the customer can see the sales tax imposed by government but not the income tax. Tariffs will be very visible, just like sales taxes. How long will consumers tolerate this?  

As a general principle, it may be a good idea to substitute sales taxes for income taxes, but that isn’t very likely given that over 50 percent of the wage earners in America pay little or no income taxes. They have no incentive to make such a trade-off.  

Which brings up another poorly thought out Trump idea: eliminate the income tax for those earning less than $150,000. This may be a good short-term political move, but in the long run it just means fewer and fewer people have any incentive to reduce the size of government. After all, it’s the guy behind the tree who’s being taxed. 

About now you’re probably thinking, “Well, who is giving Trump all this bad advice?” Perhaps nobody. I suspect most of this stuff is Trump’s idea. However, Peter Navarro, Trump’s top economic adviser, has said that tariffs will raise $600 billion a year and lead to tax cuts while also encouraging consumers to “buy American.” Oh, my. Those are mutually exclusive: The more Americans “buy American” the lower tariff revenue will be.  No wonder Elon Musk called Navarro a moron.  

Trump also says tariffs will motivate companies to move here to get behind the tariff walls, and some companies have announced expansion plans in the United States since the tariffs were announced. Trump claims this was because of his tariff threats, but I think they were going to come here anyway to escape Europe’s ridiculously high electricity prices. Trump’s energy policies are much more sensible than Europe’s. 

(If Trump really wants to get foreign companies to move here, lowering the corporate tax rate would be a much more effective way. The ideal corporate income tax rate is zero but try getting that through Congress!) 

Another nonsensical idea is that the threat of tariffs will cause Mexico and Canada to beef up border inspections and reduce the amount of fentanyl coming into the U.S. Fentanyl producers will simply move their labs to the US, just like Trump predicted producers would do, though he didn’t have fentanyl producers in mind.   

Perhaps the most seductive argument in favor of tariffs is that they will reduce our trade deficit. Trade deficits and surpluses are an area that very few people understand, including damn near all our politicians. Whether we have a trade deficit or trade surplus is irrelevant. 

For 70 years from 1800 to 1870 the United States ran a trade deficit in all but three years. Then, for the next 100 years, 1870 to 1970, we had trade surpluses. Since 1975 until now, 50 years, it’s been deficits. I don’t know of any economist anywhere who’s ever made the case that surpluses are good and deficits are bad, or the converse. 

Not so tariffs. Most economists recognize that tariffs do a lot of harm, especially if one tariff leads to a retaliatory tariff, and then to another and on and on.  The Founding Fathers realized this and they made provisions in the Constitution to make sure that states didn’t tariff one another.  

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution has this sentence: “No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” Section 10 clarifies this prohibition: “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any Imposts or duties on Imports or Exports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on Imports or Exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”  

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant!  

So, is Trump’s tariff tango shrewd or stupid? If the end result is elimination of tariffs with most of our trading partners and reducing the threat of depending on China for strategic goods, then Trump is shrewd and I’m stupid. I hope that’s how it works out.  

My Islam essays now available on Amazon

Leave a reply

I’ve been studying and writing about the religion of Islam for over 10 years. Some of my essays have gotten very favorable critical reviews.  

After some turmoil with a self-publishing company, there is now a compilation of these essays available on Amazon.com. Just search “Peter V. Burrows” under “Books.” It’s titled “How to Read the Koran (and understand Islam) and other essays about ‘The Religion of Peace.’ ” 

I just received a copy and I’m pleased with how it came out. A couple of very minor things to correct, but all in all, I’m good with it. (The initial ebook that Publishing Mojo, my publisher, put on Amazon had some critical errors, since corrected, and the one-star rating I gave it is now deleted.) 

The paperback is $15 and I doubt very much if I’ll ever cover my costs. It was never my hope to make any money and I care not a whit if I’m plagiarized. The back cover states: “Readers are free to use anything in this publication without attribution.” 

The purpose is to educate about Islam. Even if I win a Nobel Prize, either Nonfiction or Peace, maybe both, I plan on giving the proceeds to the home for unwed mothers. Right.  

TIA to those of you who buy a copy.  

“So now, what’s your take on the significant discrepancy between average pay for workers and corporate CEOs?”

Leave a reply

“So now, what’s your take on the significant discrepancy between average pay for workers and corporate CEOs?”  by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 4/18/24 

(Another question asked by Cousin Deb, a retired professor at Cornell University. She has a Ph.D. in Education, which she is valiantly trying to overcome. This is my emailed response.)   

The CEO- average worker pay gap? Oh, that’s something I worry about all the time. I can barely sleep at night thinking about that terrible, horrible injustice.  

Please. What corporations pay their CEOs and their workers are free market transactions, willingly entered into by consenting adults. Frankly, it’s none of my business and it’s none of yours.  

I realize that people whose sense of cosmic justice is offended by what they consider to be “too much,” whether a pay gap, or a salary or whatever, would like to pass a few laws to “correct” these things. Send in the Government. Badges and guns. Right. 

You and I can make it our business by buying a single share in the offending corporation, attend the annual meeting and propose to shareholders that we owners adjust that CEO worker average pay gap. Now if we can’t get enough shareholders to agree with us, what we can then do is gather like-minded people together and buy enough shares to simply take over the company or buy enough so we can control the board of directors.  

Or maybe we can start our own company to compete against that evil corporation. Or maybe just boycott their products.  

Gosh, all that would take a lot of work and might mean risking — GASP – our own money! Oh no. Pass a law. Send in the cops! Typical authoritarian impulse of the morally superior elitist, to whom I ask: “Who made you God?”  

It happens across the political spectrum, depending on the issue. Too many people want to use the power of government to “do good,” e.g., some pro-lifers would jail anybody involved in an abortion, nurses to patients. Sigh. 

Also, the pay gap that knots the knickers on elitist pinheads sometimes includes the result of stock options or stock sales, which can really skew the results. For example, a few years ago Elon Musk sold $3.5 billion in Tesla stock. That kind of alters the average pay gap, doesn’t it? 

More typically, it’s stock options the CEO cashes in that causes lots of heavy breathing in the same crowd that has no problem with Claudine Gay getting paid $900K. Harvard is private, so I could give a rat’s ass. 

I do give a rat’s ass when the president of our local WNMU is paid damn near $400k a year for a state job that I suspect could be done for much less. The government bureaucrats just take tax dollars and pay each other whatever they think they’re worth. I don’t like it but not much I can do about it but vote for people like me — or become a PhD. and cash in too!  (;~) 

I do have a slight problem with somebody like Elon Musk making billions upon billions when Tesla’s business, from cars to batteries, basically depends upon government mandates and tons of subsidies. He was smart enough to cash in, so I guess I can’t blame him for taking advantage of government stupidity. That stupidity IS our business! 

One last thing, The people who talk about taxing the billionaires as if those billionaires did something wrong or evil, don’t seem to realize that the great preponderance of billionaires in this country support liberal causes. The Google boys, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, Bezos and on and on and on.  

I’d rather have a society where entrepreneurs get filthy rich, even liberal ones, than live in a society that punishes success out of some moral outrage at a perceived “inequality.” Bezos has billions of dollars in Amazon stock, the price of which is in some small part due to my business at Amazon and thank you Jeff, you liberal asshole. He didn’t steal a penny of his wealth and I have benefited greatly from his genius.   

I say don’t put extra taxes on any billionaire, lib or otherwise, because that means taking money out of private hands and putting it in government hands. No thank you. The government didn’t earn that money, in spite of what Obama says.  

The same goes for estate taxes, which should be zero. People who think heirs shouldn’t enjoy money that they didn’t earn are making moral judgments, playing God again. That also takes money out of the private sector and puts it in the public sector, where it’s usually wasted.  

Other than that, Deb, I don’t have any opinion on the topic. 

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?”

Leave a reply

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?” by Peter Burrows 4/17/24   

(I was recently asked that question by my cousin Deb, who is a retired professor at Cornell University. She has a Ph.D. in Education, which she is valiantly trying to overcome. This is my emailed response.)  

“What do you think about taxing wealthy folks?” Oh, my. That’s a “prod the bear question” which I’ll try to answer without it shortening my life too much. 

In brief, for as long as I’ve been a reasonably informed voter, at least 55 years, the Democrats have made issues of “taxing the wealthy” and “paying their fair share,” whether it’s from individuals or corporations. 

It’s all demagogic BS and the Republicans have let them get away with it. These arguments are easily refuted by a look at the facts, and only once do I remember a Republican taking a Democrat to task about it. That was in a VP debate between Lloyd Benson and Dan Quail.  (Yes, I’m that old.) 

As I recall, Benson said something about evil President Reagan lowering the top tax rates and Quail responding that the lower tax rates actually raised MORE money, which was true. Benson then said something very revealing, something to the effect that higher tax rates may not actually raise taxes, but they would give the APPEARANCE of fairness. 

In other words, f— the facts and fool the people, or something like that. As ever, demagoguery depends upon an ignorant electorate. 

As an aside, I have also heard Democrats over the years say something to the effect that there are x-number corporations who make billions in profits yet don’t pay any taxes, and isn’t that unfair? So, vote for me, etc. etc., as if though once in office the Democrat will make those scofflaw corporations pony up. 

The problem is, once again, a little thing called facts. WHY don’t the corporations pay taxes? The implication is they are somehow breaking the law, when in fact the reason they don’t pay income taxes is because they didn’t earn any income! 

How is that you say? The answer is slightly arcane, but not so much so that the public wouldn’t understand if properly presented to them, something the Republicans fail to do, which is inexcusable. 

Corporations keep two sets of books, both of which are available for public scrutiny. Nothing secret here. One is for the IRS, the other for the shareholders, which is what is reported. What is reported are NORMALIZED earnings, i.e., what earnings would be if they weren’t affected by unusual or one-time occurrences.  

The most common discrepancy between IRS earnings and normalized earnings is the use of accelerated depreciation. Corporations use accelerated depreciation when reporting to the IRS and straight-line depreciation when reporting to shareholders.   

As an example, a company buys a delivery truck for $100,000 which has an estimated life of 10 years. The normalized depreciation expense would be $10,000 per year, but accelerated depreciation might allow the company to expense $50,000 in the first year. 

 (The same amount of depreciation expense is going to be deducted, accelerated depreciation just allows it to be deducted sooner rather than later. This saves money by lowering today’s taxes, freeing up funds that can be invested, etc.)  

When capital expenditures are in the billions or hundreds of millions, you can see how the added expense from accelerated depreciation could easily wipe out earnings. If the company then reported a net loss to shareholders, this could give a misleading picture about how the company’s business is doing.   

That’s why companies report “normalized” earnings, something I’ve long thought was foolish. Corporations should publicly report IRS earnings, with normalized earnings as a footnote. Investors and shareholders are sophisticated enough to figure this out, but the man in the street ISN’T, which is what the Democrats count on.   

Similarly, the Democrats depend on the man in the street not knowing the difference between income tax RATES and income tax RESULTS. The top individual rate today is 37%. The top rate when Reagan took office was 70%, which was cut to 50% in 1981, and the top rate when Kennedy took office was a stratospheric 91% which was cut to 65% in 1963. 

Both rate cuts resulted in tax revenue increases. What this means is that wealthy people actually paid MORE in taxes than they did before the rate cuts. An economist named Art Laffer became famous for articulating this in what is now known as The Laffer Curve, which you can check out in the Wikipedia link below. 

In essence, lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenues which is the case today. In fact, according to a recent article in Reason Magazine, “the wealthiest Americans are now paying a higher share of federal taxes than at any time in the past 40 years.”  

The article states that according to 2021 returns, the top 1% of earners paid nearly 46% (!!) of all income taxes, the top 10% paid 76% and the top 25% paid 89%. By contrast the bottom 50% paid only 2.3%. (See link below.) 

What this means, not surprisingly, is that there is a large constituency in favor of raising taxes because they don’t pay any. What a sweet deal.  

So, to answer your question, what do I think about taxing wealthy people? I think wealthy people are OVERTAXED and that the tax burden should be spread more evenly. That would mean raising the taxes on the bottom 50%. How many votes do you think I’d get running on that platform?  

As to raising taxes on corporations, this reflects a basic misunderstanding of how the world works. The rate of return on investment is always calculated after taxes are paid, which means taxes are considered an expense. Expenses are paid out of revenues, aka sales, which means that it is the CUSTOMERS who pay the taxes, just as they pay all the other expenses.  

Corporations only appear to pay taxes, which is good enough for the demagogues.   

Interestingly, politicians tacitly acknowledge this reality when they offer lower tax rates to attract corporations. Ireland, for example, taxes companies at only 15% while Biden wants to raise rates to 28% from 21%.  If you are an international company looking for a place to expand, all things being equal, you go to Ireland.  

In my opinion, the corporate tax rate should be ZERO. Competition would force corporations to pass the savings on to the customer, ergo, lower prices.  

Well, that’s not going to happen. No politician would ever propose zero taxes on corporations, let alone propose raising taxes on the bottom 50% of wage earners. Maybe if we had term limits we could expect some statesmanship from those we elect, which is one reason to have a Constitutional Convention, but that’s another issue. 

Now, aren’t you glad you asked?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

(The link to Reason Magazine that WordPress can’t open is to an article published April 12 by Eric Boehm, “The Real Tax Gap.” It shouldn’t be too hard to find.)

The Real Tax Gap

FYI, here is JFK’s Message to Congress, 1/24/1963, proposing lower taxes. If you didn’t know, you’d think he was a Republican!  

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-tax-reduction-and-reform

The “one issue” voter problem

Leave a reply

The “one issue” voter problem By Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com 4/9/24 

Churchill once famously said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” These days, I don’t think it would take that long. I would bet a Don Juan burrito that the average voter can’t name their two senators or who represents them in the House of Representatives, let alone any details about budgets, foreign policy, etc., etc. ad infinitum.  

In defense of the average voter, in a world with so many complex issues, we can’t expect voters to be well-informed about all of them and, in fact, many voters simply don’t have the time or the interest to become well-informed on ANY issue. They look at only one thing when it comes to who they vote for: party affiliation. 

Given the bias of the media today, this gives the Democrats a huge advantage. It’s hard to imagine, for example, any Democrat president today getting an approval rating as low as the 22% given to Harry Truman who, in hindsight, was a pretty good President. That’s lower than the 24% approval for Richard Nixon in a poll taken just before he resigned in disgrace.(1)  

Truman’s readings may have reflected a media bias that was pro Republican back then. Today’s media bias is very much the opposite and probably accounts for President Biden’s approval rating of 40%, which is ridiculously high for an obviously incompetent, senile octogenarian.  If you suspect this rating hides a huge division of opinion based upon party, go to the head of the class. Sure enough, the Democrats give Biden a — get this — 77% approval rating (!!) vs. the Republicans giving him only 7%. (2) 

As for Trump, his recent ratings were 52.5% unfavorable vs. 42.6% favorable.(3) Once again, this reflects a huge division based on party, and while I couldn’t find any current polls, one from last July shows Republican approval for Trump at 66%, and Democrat disapproval a whopping 91%! (4) 

Never in my lifetime has there been such a huge, and heated, division. To say that Trump elicits an emotional reaction from voters is very much an understatement. Emotions trump facts, no pun intended, and what this means is that Trump is THE issue in this election: 

 A new Economist/YouGov poll’s findings revealed precisely what the 2024 election will be about. The survey showed that regardless of which side one is on, this race is all about Trump.(5) 

People voting their emotions can destroy democracies, which have a history of putting charismatic demagogues in power who then become dictators.  Hitler, Mussolini, Hugo Chavez, Juan Peron and Robet Mugabe come readily to mind. That’s why our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic, sometimes called a representative democracy, in which the people elect representatives to govern. 

This puts a buffer between the “madness of the crowds” and those passing laws. The Founding Fathers wisely thought this wasn’t enough of a buffer to protect us from democracy — yes, PROTECT us from democracy — so they created a bicameral government in which one of the legislative bodies was not directly elected by the people: the Senate.  

Few people know this, but Senators used to be appointed by their state legislators, which meant that the Senate was only very indirectly elected by the people, i.e., was one more step removed from the madding crowds. This ended with the 17th Amendment, enacted in 1912 and effective for the 1914 election which was the first that saw senators elected directly by popular vote.  

My impression of the times is that the state legislatures were only too happy to let Senators be chosen by popular vote. Selecting Senators was one hell of a lot of work for the state legislators. Why not just let the people decide? More democracy! Sounds good, doesn’t it?  Not in hindsight.  

What this means is that the Senate today is composed of 100 people who, politically, are no different from their cohorts in the House of Representatives. Members of both houses are politicians, people who appeal to the general populace for votes and usually have as their number one priority getting reelected.        

Elections are expensive. Candidates often complain about the time they spend raising money, and this includes those people who are already in office. Senators, who originally only worried about lobbying their state legislatures, if that, now have to spend time raising money, kissing ass and placating special interests, just like their cohorts in the House of Representatives.  

Thus, the Senate is no longer much of a check on the emotions that might run rampant in the House, since they are also swayed by those same emotions. And that’s why this election is so dangerous. The 91 percent disapproval rating of Donald Trump from their constituents is something the Democrats in the Senate and House are very aware of.  

Furthermore, this is a STRONG disapproval. If some of the news announcers and talk show hosts in the MSM, especially on CNN and MSNBC, are any indication, some of the opposition to Trump is positively hysterical. I’m afraid Keith Olbermann’s thinly veiled sincere hope for Trump’s assassination is not an outlier. (6)    

Even if Trump can overcome swing-state voter fraud and actually win, we can expect a repeat of the “mostly peaceful” riots of 2020 led by the same Antifa/BLM masked thugs, except this time on a much larger, more intense scale. It would not surprise me if President Biden would then declare martial law. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the Democrats and RINO Never-Trumpers in Congress vote to overturn the election results to “save Democracy.” 

I hope I’m wrong. It’s ridiculous that this election is about Trump, who is a loud-mouthed New York asshole, NOT a threat to “democracy” or a dictator in waiting. Robert F Kennedy Jr. was quite correct to point out to an interviewer that Biden is a ‘much worse threat to democracy’ than Trump.(7) RFK, Jr. has also said voters deserve better than the ‘least of two evils’(8), something I thoroughly agree with. The problem is, with RFK, Jr. in the race, it would be the least of THREE evils.  

As impossible as it may be for some people to believe, there are a number of issues which are far more important than the specter of Donald Trump as president, issues I think Trump can deal with far better than Biden. The Biden Administration’s complicity in the illegal immigrant invasion is number one on my list because it is an open violation of the Constitution, Article IV section 4:  

“The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;” 

A Trump administration will stop the invasion and MAYBE prosecute those responsible. Maybe. “Maybe” is better than nothing. So, while Trump is a long way from being my first choice, my first choice isn’t on the ballot. I can only choose the “least of two evils” and compared to Biden, Trump is Mother Teresa. 

(1) https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx 

(2) https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-BIDEN/POLL/nmopagnqapa/  

(3) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ 

(4) https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/21/little-change-in-americans-views-of-trump-over-the-past-year/ 

(5) https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/04/03/new-survey-shows-exactly-what-the-2024-election-will-be-about-n2172287 

(6) https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-suggests-hope-trumps-assassination-x-post 

(7) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-cnn-interview-biden-trump 

(8) https://www.audacy.com/wwjnewsradio/news/national/rfk-says-americans-deserve-better-than-the-least-of-2-evils