FuturePundit: Interrupts Cut Into Work Productivity
So interruptions are bad, huh? I buy it.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Taxing the Rich
Wayne Huizenga, founder of Blockbuster and owner of the NFL Miami Dolphins, is afraid of the tax situation that allowed him to buy the Dolphins in the first place. The late Joe Robbie's family sold Huizenga the Dolphins, primarily to pay the federal estate taxes caused by Robbie's death.
Now Huizenga fears that he will have to pay high taxes too when he sells the team, whether during life or after his death.
Laying aside the fact that a good estate or tax attorney can minimize these consequences, these are valid concerns. The problem is that these are taxation of wealth issues. For this discussion, wealth means assets owned by a person, regardless if a business asset, personal asset, real estate, stock, politician . . . er, never mind . . . . The point is . . . .
Wealth taxes are different than income taxes. So, what are income taxes, in truth? Income taxes are taxes for money received in exchange for anything other than wealth. If you work and receive a wage, income taxes apply. If you own a rental home, income taxes apply to rental income. If you own a store, income taxes apply to profits. Day-to-day transactions generate income taxes.
In an entrepreneurial environment, income is used to make business grow big. Entrepreneurs with no knowledge of taxes and wealth creation solely focus on managing their businesses by managing income creation. They make a dollar; they pay 40 cents in taxes. That's normal, right?
That's not the way the wealthy play. The wealthy don't run a business. They manage investments. A wealthy businessman knows that his company creates wealth by showing the world he can generate income. Once he puts those numbers on paper, he works to remove that income from the books. Tax cheats do it by stealing the money. Smart, wealthy, scrupulous businessmen do it by finding ways to recharacterize the income as something else. They buy new equipment for their business. They spend money on their businesses to make next year's income go up but save taxes this year. This process causes the income to disappear while increasing the amount that possible buyers of the business would be willing to pay to get control over that income stream.
Making the future income look higher while making current income nontaxable through deductions is good investment management. The wealthy businessman knows that he doesn't need a paycheck today any larger than his mortgage company and auto loan servicer require (assuming he doesn't own these outright already). He is willing to wait for his money. He has that luxury.
Once he can afford to wait for the money, and he has avoided as much in income taxes as possible by making his business work better and have more value to potential buyers, he wants to make sure that no one causes his hard to fall apart. That's where politicians in your pocket are invaluable.
The goal of the wealthy is to cause taxes on wealth to be as small as possible and the tax on income as high as possible. Politicians are happy to do this. They can complain about the wealthy businessman to voters and take the wealthy businessman's contributions at the same time. The typical voter doesn't realize his dream of punishing the wealthy businessman is actually making the wealthy businessman wealthier and more powerful.
The wealthy businessman has avoided the income taxes, now he prevents newer, "greedier" businessmen from knocking him off his thone. Now he gets to sell his business based on its valuer being higher because competitors can't enter the field of play. He sells his business through outright sale or stock offering to the public. He gets to move his investment out of the business into a new investment, sometimes for not a penny in income taxes. Now he can invest in assets like those that will generate no taxes even if it generates income. The usual asset used is municipal bonds. These create no income taxes because they "help cities build roads and bridges, so it helps the community."
Does this sound too good to be true? It's not. That is what wealthy businessmen do every day.
Compare that to the entrepreneur who is solely focused on how much money his business makes. He pays more taxes for every dollar earned than our wealthy businessman. He has to compete with guy down the street. He has his whole life invested in his business, and no one wants to buy it.
Politicians tax these guys the heaviest. Why? Ignorance. Few Americans in public schools learn about wealth, taxes, or business. They sure learn about how great import tariffs were to allow American industry to grow during the pre-income tax era. They don't learn how important the development of real estate and mortgage law was in creating a cash-based society (granted, because the research is rather new).
Income taxes on businesses prevent job creation and prices for everyday good from falling. Income taxes on businesses allow politicians to brag about their care for the average Joe while stealing them blind.
Fear any politician preaching about equality. How can he want equality for anyone when he is running to be a member of an elite, over the masses? He wants you to be equal with your neighbor so long as he is above you. His tool for both is the income tax on you and no effective taxes on his wealthy buddies.
The solution? Liberty. Less politician written rules. Less room for the politician to generate power bases.
Now Huizenga fears that he will have to pay high taxes too when he sells the team, whether during life or after his death.
Laying aside the fact that a good estate or tax attorney can minimize these consequences, these are valid concerns. The problem is that these are taxation of wealth issues. For this discussion, wealth means assets owned by a person, regardless if a business asset, personal asset, real estate, stock, politician . . . er, never mind . . . . The point is . . . .
Wealth taxes are different than income taxes. So, what are income taxes, in truth? Income taxes are taxes for money received in exchange for anything other than wealth. If you work and receive a wage, income taxes apply. If you own a rental home, income taxes apply to rental income. If you own a store, income taxes apply to profits. Day-to-day transactions generate income taxes.
In an entrepreneurial environment, income is used to make business grow big. Entrepreneurs with no knowledge of taxes and wealth creation solely focus on managing their businesses by managing income creation. They make a dollar; they pay 40 cents in taxes. That's normal, right?
That's not the way the wealthy play. The wealthy don't run a business. They manage investments. A wealthy businessman knows that his company creates wealth by showing the world he can generate income. Once he puts those numbers on paper, he works to remove that income from the books. Tax cheats do it by stealing the money. Smart, wealthy, scrupulous businessmen do it by finding ways to recharacterize the income as something else. They buy new equipment for their business. They spend money on their businesses to make next year's income go up but save taxes this year. This process causes the income to disappear while increasing the amount that possible buyers of the business would be willing to pay to get control over that income stream.
Making the future income look higher while making current income nontaxable through deductions is good investment management. The wealthy businessman knows that he doesn't need a paycheck today any larger than his mortgage company and auto loan servicer require (assuming he doesn't own these outright already). He is willing to wait for his money. He has that luxury.
Once he can afford to wait for the money, and he has avoided as much in income taxes as possible by making his business work better and have more value to potential buyers, he wants to make sure that no one causes his hard to fall apart. That's where politicians in your pocket are invaluable.
The goal of the wealthy is to cause taxes on wealth to be as small as possible and the tax on income as high as possible. Politicians are happy to do this. They can complain about the wealthy businessman to voters and take the wealthy businessman's contributions at the same time. The typical voter doesn't realize his dream of punishing the wealthy businessman is actually making the wealthy businessman wealthier and more powerful.
The wealthy businessman has avoided the income taxes, now he prevents newer, "greedier" businessmen from knocking him off his thone. Now he gets to sell his business based on its valuer being higher because competitors can't enter the field of play. He sells his business through outright sale or stock offering to the public. He gets to move his investment out of the business into a new investment, sometimes for not a penny in income taxes. Now he can invest in assets like those that will generate no taxes even if it generates income. The usual asset used is municipal bonds. These create no income taxes because they "help cities build roads and bridges, so it helps the community."
Does this sound too good to be true? It's not. That is what wealthy businessmen do every day.
Compare that to the entrepreneur who is solely focused on how much money his business makes. He pays more taxes for every dollar earned than our wealthy businessman. He has to compete with guy down the street. He has his whole life invested in his business, and no one wants to buy it.
Politicians tax these guys the heaviest. Why? Ignorance. Few Americans in public schools learn about wealth, taxes, or business. They sure learn about how great import tariffs were to allow American industry to grow during the pre-income tax era. They don't learn how important the development of real estate and mortgage law was in creating a cash-based society (granted, because the research is rather new).
Income taxes on businesses prevent job creation and prices for everyday good from falling. Income taxes on businesses allow politicians to brag about their care for the average Joe while stealing them blind.
Fear any politician preaching about equality. How can he want equality for anyone when he is running to be a member of an elite, over the masses? He wants you to be equal with your neighbor so long as he is above you. His tool for both is the income tax on you and no effective taxes on his wealthy buddies.
The solution? Liberty. Less politician written rules. Less room for the politician to generate power bases.
Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins
Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins
This article is one of the best reasons to argue against Socialism/Communism.
The biggest advantage of SoCo (why refer to them separately?) is that its marketing is killer: equality for all, using the power of the State.
The biggest disadvantage of SoCo is it is merely a system for getting power and wealth to the biggest players. In the USSR, this was easy to watch and measure. Politburo members were dukes of their fiefdoms. The king, the Party Secretary, had no power without the consent of his Politburo/Privy Council.
As a business attorney, any small business needs to have a business plan. The best and most likely to create wealth for its owner are business plans that are based on "barriers to entry." This is a term of art that means that there is so technological, geographical, or -- most powerfully -- regulatory barrier to allowing competitors to enter the market. One local, highly successful, serial entrepreneur makes no bones about his preferred business plan: one that has high barriers to entry.
He likes radio stations, banks, etc. These two examples have severe requirements to get started. For radio stations, he need a broadcasting license from the FCC. Since these licenses control the number of stations in a market and the range of the signal (as measured by the broadcast signal's power), the FCC licenses are highly sought after.
For banks, to start a new bank, you need to comply with piles of paperwork and raise a lot of capital. In the current banking crisis, these needs become easier to understand the motivations: paperwork to prove investors' honesty, intended business practices, ability to manager crises, experience with money management; the capital to allow the bank to avoid accepting deposits and on the first rumor of bad news, facing a run on the bank.
These businesses have traditionally generated huge profits by limiting competition.
People like George Soros not only like barriers to entry, but strive to create them in more places. If you have a Politburo member in your pocket, you can make money by the truckload by keeping all other competitors out.
By pushing SoCo, Soros is able to prevent other players on his turf and claiming the moral high ground at the same time. He is able to claim the mantel of Robin Hood while truly being the evil Prince John, the usurper to the long crusading King Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Soros may not have created the crisis, but he benefits and thrives in this environment. It is in his best interest for the Bush Treasury to nationalize whatever it can, then get a committed Marxist elected president.
The secret of capitalism is competition and low barriers to entry. This creates both equalities of opportunity and of result. Most of the wealthiest men (and women) are in businesses with high barriers to entry. Consider that.
This article is one of the best reasons to argue against Socialism/Communism.
The biggest advantage of SoCo (why refer to them separately?) is that its marketing is killer: equality for all, using the power of the State.
The biggest disadvantage of SoCo is it is merely a system for getting power and wealth to the biggest players. In the USSR, this was easy to watch and measure. Politburo members were dukes of their fiefdoms. The king, the Party Secretary, had no power without the consent of his Politburo/Privy Council.
As a business attorney, any small business needs to have a business plan. The best and most likely to create wealth for its owner are business plans that are based on "barriers to entry." This is a term of art that means that there is so technological, geographical, or -- most powerfully -- regulatory barrier to allowing competitors to enter the market. One local, highly successful, serial entrepreneur makes no bones about his preferred business plan: one that has high barriers to entry.
He likes radio stations, banks, etc. These two examples have severe requirements to get started. For radio stations, he need a broadcasting license from the FCC. Since these licenses control the number of stations in a market and the range of the signal (as measured by the broadcast signal's power), the FCC licenses are highly sought after.
For banks, to start a new bank, you need to comply with piles of paperwork and raise a lot of capital. In the current banking crisis, these needs become easier to understand the motivations: paperwork to prove investors' honesty, intended business practices, ability to manager crises, experience with money management; the capital to allow the bank to avoid accepting deposits and on the first rumor of bad news, facing a run on the bank.
These businesses have traditionally generated huge profits by limiting competition.
People like George Soros not only like barriers to entry, but strive to create them in more places. If you have a Politburo member in your pocket, you can make money by the truckload by keeping all other competitors out.
By pushing SoCo, Soros is able to prevent other players on his turf and claiming the moral high ground at the same time. He is able to claim the mantel of Robin Hood while truly being the evil Prince John, the usurper to the long crusading King Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Soros may not have created the crisis, but he benefits and thrives in this environment. It is in his best interest for the Bush Treasury to nationalize whatever it can, then get a committed Marxist elected president.
The secret of capitalism is competition and low barriers to entry. This creates both equalities of opportunity and of result. Most of the wealthiest men (and women) are in businesses with high barriers to entry. Consider that.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
So higher taxes won't change big owner's behavior?
So higher taxes won't change big owner's behavior?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So a Buraq (Arabic), Burak (Turkish), or Barak (Swahili, I am guessing, since that is the official language of Kenya) is half human and half donkey? Seriously?
So, what about the later stories that a Barak is half woman, half horse, with the tail of a bird? Wow, the imagery here is enough to make me laugh. Barak with his hand on Bible before the Capitol with full fur and birds feathers.
Now there is a man that can face down Russia and Iran!
And now back to more serious reasons to oppose Obama . . . .
So a Buraq (Arabic), Burak (Turkish), or Barak (Swahili, I am guessing, since that is the official language of Kenya) is half human and half donkey? Seriously?
So, what about the later stories that a Barak is half woman, half horse, with the tail of a bird? Wow, the imagery here is enough to make me laugh. Barak with his hand on Bible before the Capitol with full fur and birds feathers.
Now there is a man that can face down Russia and Iran!
And now back to more serious reasons to oppose Obama . . . .
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Spectator.org
Spectator.org
Is Obama stealing the money with nearly a quarter billion dollars of illegal campaign contributions? No one knows. No one can find out. If Obama wins, no will ever know during his presidency.
The amount of funds he has received tends to leave a standard margin of error causing a larger sum of cash in question. If all candidates have 5% of their money from questionable sources, a million dollar campaign leads to only $50,000 in funny money. A $100 million campaign has $5 million in funny money. A $750 million campaign has nearly $38 million in funny money.
But $200 million in funny money?! That suggests real problems. Since the Federal Election Commission is effectively a dead institution at the moment, it is a prime time to steal an election. We may never know in time.
Is Obama stealing the money with nearly a quarter billion dollars of illegal campaign contributions? No one knows. No one can find out. If Obama wins, no will ever know during his presidency.
The amount of funds he has received tends to leave a standard margin of error causing a larger sum of cash in question. If all candidates have 5% of their money from questionable sources, a million dollar campaign leads to only $50,000 in funny money. A $100 million campaign has $5 million in funny money. A $750 million campaign has nearly $38 million in funny money.
But $200 million in funny money?! That suggests real problems. Since the Federal Election Commission is effectively a dead institution at the moment, it is a prime time to steal an election. We may never know in time.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News
Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News
I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.
Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.
If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.
I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.
Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.
If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)