Filed under Taxes

How to explain the tax system at the bar

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a couple of beers 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 ten men drank in the pub every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the publican threw them a curly one.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″.  Drinks for you ten blokes will 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 publican 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 that each bloke should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, – now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

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 that he got ten 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 get all the breaks!”  “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 between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that is how our tax system works.

The people who already 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.

Attributed to 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.

 

Google and the rent is too damn high

Bloomberg published a story this week titled “Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes“.  The premise here is that Google is somehow cheating the US Government out of its “fair share” of the Google profits.  That premise is misleading is and even downright wrong.

A company like Google with customers all over the world cannot pay taxes in 50, 60 or 100 countries.  Given that, a company has to establish some roots somewhere so it may as well do the smartest thing possible as long as it is legal to improve shareholder value and minimize its expenses.

Many (not all) governments have this notion that companies that intelligently structure their organization are somehow stealing something from the citizenry of a country by denying them the tax revenue that would otherwise be there if the company structure was not as tax efficient.  This is flawed logic – as if somehow the tax burden of this has been moved on to the citizens of the nations because this tax revenue never made it to the government.

Google employs about 20,000 people.  This article, instead of trying to make the case that Google is robbing the government of $60 Billion could just as easily have read that thanks to smart tax structure Google can afford to expand it tax paying work force and has increase shareholder value tremendously.  If you own stock on Google, you certainly want to see it go up.   The money that Google saves by legally lowering its tax burden ultimately goes to people that either work for Google or the shareholders that own Google or into the pockets of all of the business that sells goods and services to Google – and all of these people and business pay taxes to the government in some form and at some point.  There need not be any whining from the government that they’re somehow getting screwed or that somehow the citizenry of America is hoisting this burden – the government is getting its taxes.

All the people that work at Google and all the people that own Google stock all pay taxes in one form or another because of that association with Google – either income tax or capital gains taxes if profits are made when stock is sold.  People make fun of the Google slogan “Don’t Be Evil:” and the article even quotes a guy saying that Google is being evil right under our noses.  No they’re not.  What is evil is a government putting the shakedown on a private or public company demanding far more in taxes that is reasonable.  For Google to set up its structure like this is in the end because most governments tax rate is too high.

Ask yourself this.  Why does someone start a company?  Is it with the dream of paying taxes?  Is it with the dream of employing people?  No. People start companies because they think that they can fill a need in the market that other people would be willing to pay for.  Look at your own company.  Is it there because the founders wanted to pay taxes?  Not quite.  Companies exist to make money and profits by servicing the needs of their fellow man.  If the need is there, and the company solves the need, and people are willing to pay for the solution, you have a business.

A side effect of that success is that people are employed and revenue (and hopefully) profits are made.  Last in line in the reasons for the existence of a company are to pay taxes to some government.    As we all know, and as is pointed out in the article, a company’s obligation is to its shareholders and part of that obligation is to increase shareholder value.  Minimizing its taxes and costs is a part of that.  There is a huge difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance.  The first is illegal and the second is not.

Clearly part of making a profit includes minimizing expenses – especially expesnes that provide absolutely no benefit.  All companies have expenses but spending money to make a business trip or on office space or on employees at least gets you something in return.  Spending money on taxes is just racking up empty calories as it were and a company is perfectly within its limits to look for ways to minimize this expense (not avoid – minimize).

In the end I think one of the main problems here is also that the internet has come about and grown so fast in the past 15 years, and especially in the past 5 years that legal systems worldwide simply cannot keep up.  When you have a company with customers all over the world, every country in the world where that company has some dealings would like to get a piece of the tax pie but that simply is not possible.  A company must figure out where it’s base is and then determine if it makes sense to use the perfectly legal and available tax structures to minimize its tax burden.  Ireland and Bermuda offer this to MNCs for a reason and MNCs flock to such places because it is in their best interests, and the best interests of the shareholders (and frankly also their employees) to do so.

Like Jimmy McMillan in the NY govenors debate said “The rent is too damn high

 

 

Confiscation of a Life


Timing is everything and one single minute could cost you big time.  An article came out today about the death of Yankee’s owner George Steinbrenner which tells the story of how by the sheer timing of his death, his heirs will avoid have a half a billion dollars stolen from them in estate taxes.

This coming January the Federal government will reinstitute a 55% estate tax that will in effect steal the wealth from the people that built it and redistribute it to those that did not build it.    FIFTY FIVE PERCENT!

This begs the question.  By what right does the government have to take half the estate of the deceased?  Haven’t they already paid taxes their whole life?  How much is enough?  It must be that the government just looks at this as easy pickings.

And in the case of Steinbrenner, let us remember that it is he who is the one (and not the government) that took the risk way back when to purchase the Yankees putting up something like $160,000 of his money and it was he who built it into a billion dollar property.

Along the way he employed no doubt countless people, provided decades of ancillary incomes for anyone connected to the game; from the people who sold beer to the parking lot attendants to stadium workers to the people that sold licensed merchandise, and to the state of NY (in taxes).  On top of that he provided years of entertainment for the people of New York and beyond.

Just think about this – how in the world should the government have any claim whatsoever on this man’s heirs?  By what right?  Fortunately for them Steinbrenner died in a convenient window of time because just 7 months later and they would have had a $500,000,000 bill from the government.

And don’t think this just hits the super rich.  Far more families that are not rich will get hit with this.  When you have a billion bucks and half of it is confiscated you’ll still be OK although you may have to sell the farm to pay the taxes (as it is assumed the Steinbrenner family would have had to sell the Yankees to cover the tax bill).   Yeah – that’s sound fair right?  The Federal government believes is deserves half your wealth because your daddy died so just sell the Yankees…

However when you have a family with a few hundred thousand in the bank after a lifetime of doing the best they can, sacrificing to build wealth and the government confiscates half, life gets real hard real fast.  The government should have no right to tax what is passed on from the deceased to their heirs.  All of it has already been taxed.

The lesson here is when we have a new Congress in place, sane people need to get the estate/death tax abolished.  The living pay enough taxes and the dead need to be left alone.

Economics of Liberty by Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams boils it down for us.  Maybe he and Thomas Sowell could be convinced to run for office?

Trickling Up and Down


To use a favorite expression of Obama when he makes a straw man argument, “there are those who say” that Trickle down economics doesn’t work.  People of such belief would say that if you cut taxes on the high achievers in society their excess cash in pocket simply will not trickle down the economic scale to the economy at large.

To them I ask, if that is the case, then I assume you would have to also argue that trickle up economics would be just as flawed right?  …..  That when you raise (or overly charge) taxes on high achievers the states would stand to gain a ton of tax revenue right.  If that were the case then why not just tax at 100% and be done with it?

A contemporary example of this in plain sight for all to see is LeBron James going to play basketball in Florida instead of New York.  Here’s a guy who with (for the sake of argument) has the same bazillion dollar offer from the team in NY and the team in Miami, Florida.  In NY LeBron has to pay state taxes.  In FL there are no state taxes.  He picks Florida saving himself over $1 million a year in taxes. You would do the same.

That’s $1,000,000 that LeBron can save, spend, invest, bank, donate, whatever he wants – and whatever he does with it will end up in the economy at large.  It is estimated that simply by picking FL over NY state he will save over $12 million in taxes that would simply go to waste by bureaucrats in NY state.

But it gets better, according to the above article (and I’d say common sense as well) the team not having Lebron in their home state will feel the trickle up (down) effects of not having the main attraction in their arena, meaning a loss of “could have been” revenue for that team and the local community.  High taxes cost NY the additional tax revenue that would have come from having Lebron play in NY, which would have been far higher than the income tax NY would have gotten out of Lebron.

Whenever you ask someone on the Left that thinks the more you make the more you should pay in taxes never has a good answer to the question “how much is enough?”  50%? 60%? 90%?  How much of someone’s income should be confiscated in order to pay taxes?  They’ll dismiss this as childish but the reality is they are fully illogical about the whole thing.

The rational approach to taxes is simple.  Lower taxes attract business, individuals, employers, achievers and with them comes all of the auxillary benefits of having them in the community/state helping to employ others, who in turn spend locally, that in turn raises state revenue.

Higher taxes means achievers, producers, and employers eventually will pick up and leave.  Need proof?  Click here to see how many people are leaving high tax states and moving to lower tax states.

Lower individual income taxes = more money for the state.     A few states get it.  Lebron definately gets it.

And by the way – allow me to be facetious for a moment…. why do we need a pay czar for corporate executives but not guys who dribble?  

Wish List for the Country


Was going to enter this on Facebook but it became to long…. Status Update…  June 2010.  How to best say this?  … 

I want nothing to do with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Durbin, Frank, the Democrat party, their ideas, plans, programs, or intentions.  Get these people out of power.   

I want much smaller government.

I want huge cuts in government spending.

I want less taxes across the board.

I want better use of taxes

I want less regulations across the board.   

I want a government that gives people the chance to fail instead of trying to create a “no one must fail society” – which has the exact opposite effect (back to intentions perhaps?).   

I want Congresspeople that are not anti-American.  

I want a President that is not anti-American.  

I want freedom from soft tyranny.

I want to not feel like I’m watching Pee-Wee’s big adventure when I look at the President

I want encouragement of the private sector.

I want some sort of a test before you can vote – kind of like learning how to drive before you get a license.

That’s pretty clear right?     


ps.  I want out of social security also.  I will sign a document today waiving any rights I might have down the road to any funds from the govt in exchange for the freedom to plan for my own future as I wish.  Fair enough?

Somebody please let Chris Christie know he’s needed in DC shortly.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers