The stuff he quoted was TOTAL taxes, etc. from the actual returns.
It would include ALL income that is included in AGI which also includes
cap gains and qualified dividends.
n=1 study that may or may not be true. I am convinced.
Of course WB is the person calling for an increase in estate taxes
largely because he has already said he is giving all his money away to a
trust (which ensures kids retain control of B-H when he does pass on) so
he won't be paying any.
That's a problem - "percentage." Why should one pay a "percentage" of
anything. You don't pay a percentage of anything for a jar of peanut butter
or a ticket to the opera. About the only other place where a percentage of
your income is involved is tithing to the church and, believe me, the
government doesn't compare to religion.
I, myself, favor a flat-flat tax: that is, everybody pays the same dollar
Let's see, the federal budget is about $2,700 billion. That works out to
about $9,000 for each person. I admit, there are obvious problems with this
scheme, but there are solutions.
For example, what about a poor person who doesn't HAVE $9,000?
Simple: They could donate blood platelets. At $1,000 per unit, the person
could donate once a month for nine months and have their tax bill for the
year paid up.
But, one might ask, what about the 20-year old mother of four? It would be
cruel to take blood from a toddler and the mother herself can't give FIVE
units of platelets a month! Absolutely! But she could give a kidney. One
kidney would be worth about five years worth of taxes for her and her brood.
Now I know what some will say; what happens after five years? Do we insist
on her OTHER kidney? Of course not - that would be stupid.
After five years, she could contribute a cornea and be good for five years
By that time, many of her children would be having children of their own,
thereby relieving her of further responsibility.
I'm a little fuzzy on the mechanism for withholding...
But, all in all, the flat-flat tax has much to recommend it.
You may laugh, but many years ago I sent this suggestion to George McGovern.
You may recall he wanted, as the first job of his administration, to send
every one a check for $1,000! This was back when there were about 200
million people and the budget was $200 billion. I simply reversed his plan.
Never got an answer.
I also sent him an alternate, compromise, plan for school bussing. My plan
was dirt simple: kids go to the school closest to their homes BUT take a two
hour detour, each way, through a differing ethnic neighborhood. Using my
plan, both sides get what they want: the conservatives get to have their
kids close to home and the liberals get to have kids on school busses for
four hours a day.
He didn't respond to that suggestion either.
Not sugar, but when the "glades" were taken over by the government.
They changed the natural flow on a sea of grass.
Land sold then for farms, now will need to be bought back.
Those billions to fix and pay for the land, fix the glades!!
Florida is dealing with 2 issues, Draining away storm water but still
maintaining enough wetland to recharge the aquifers. The real answer
is not to drain the swamps but there is too much money in development
to stop it. I suppose they might slow down when we run out of water.
How about New Jersey folks?
Not that New Jersey has had an outright hurricane strike since about
104-105 years ago, but hurricanes ain't the only storms that cause severe
As in "Nor'easters", which batter the USA East Coast mainly near and
above Cape Hatteras NC, generally from late October to early May, with
much of the historic worst ones in March?
Oh, and isn't about 63% of the entire USA that was ever known to
be flooded expected to endure a "100 year flood" within the next 100
years? I think that those who live in 100 and especially 500 year
floodplains should not burden the taxpayers for anything, except maybe for
assistance to move to safer ground!
And I think that anyone having a home or business on the USA coast
anywhere from the Rio Grande to Virginia Beach needs to be doing so at
their own risk of hurricanes! And anyone having a home or business on the
USA East Coast around or north of Cape Hatteras needs to do so at their
own risk from Nor'easters! And anyone having a home or business on the
USA West Coast needs to do so at their own risk from the storms that hit
there, especially the ones that are worsened by El Nino (mainly Southern
CA) and La Nina (mainly north of SF).
Also, I think that American taxpayers should not be burdened to help any
fellow Americans that are stricken by an earthquake after moving into
- Don Klipstein ( firstname.lastname@example.org)
They have done that in some places that are prone to river flooding
in the Midwest. Picked up whole towns and moved them to higher ground.
Told those who stayed they were welcome to do so, but don't expect any
help beyond some sandbags next time the a river rose.
How about the Atlantic Coast above the hurricane-bitten stretch, where
ferocious nor'easters occaisionally occur? Every couple of decades, one
produces sustained lower-Cat-1 hurricane force wind on the coast, and hits
a stretch hundreds of miles long with several hours of wind having
sustained 55-plus MPH and gusts over 65. The storm surge can reach 6,
maybe 8 feet. The damage from such a nor'easter is usually like that a
Cat-2 hurricane, but more widespread.
- Don Klipstein ( email@example.com)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.